Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 26 Mar 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 26, 2002

Official Report 138KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Provision of School Education for Children under School Age (Prescribed Children) (Scotland) Order (SSI 2002/90)

The next item is consideration of an instrument that is subject to negative procedure—the Provision of School Education for Children under School Age (Prescribed Children) (Scotland) Order (SSI 2002/90). Committee members have the procedural note, an extract from the 16th report of the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the explanatory note, which is not part of the instrument.

Executive officials will be present for the item. We have with us Richard Wilkins and Linda Gregson from the early education and child care division. [Interruption.] I am sorry, we have Louyse McConnell-Trevillion—you are making things easy for me this afternoon—in place of Linda Gregson.

The order defines which children are eligible for pre-school education and to how much pre-school education those children are entitled. Do the witnesses want to make a statement or are they happy to receive questions?

We are happy to receive questions. The purpose of the order is to commence a policy that has been known about since the passing of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000. In many ways, the order is a continuation of existing practice in the many local authorities in which pre-school education is provided for three and four-year-olds.

How do the recommendations of the deferrals working group tie in with the order? I know that to answer that is not as easy as it sounds.

As members know, under the original proposals to expand pre-school provision, children whose birthdays are in January and February became eligible for their first term of pre-school education in the summer term when they were three years old, after which they were eligible for a full year of pre-school education. Such children were entitled to only four terms of pre-school education, after which, at the age of four and a half, they could either attend primary school or defer entry, in which case they would not be eligible for pre-school education during the period of the deferral.

It was pointed out that that system potentially put some children at a double disadvantage. First, they were eligible for pre-school education only for four terms rather than for five or six terms. Secondly, the system increased the temptation for parents to put their children into primary school at a younger age than other children in the group. Although that is appropriate for many children who are four and a half, it is not appropriate for all of them. As a result of those problems, a working group was set up to consider deferrals. It was decided that children whose birthdays were in January and February should be entitled automatically to receive pre-school education if their entry into primary school is deferred. In effect, they are entitled to seven terms of pre-school education.

Children whose birthdays fall between August and December are still entitled to defer entry to primary school, but they are not entitled automatically to another three terms of pre-school education. The working group decided that because such children receive five terms of pre-school education, they receive many advantages from it and, because they are slightly older, they are less likely to be at a serious disadvantage if they enter primary school when they are younger than five.

The issue is finely balanced, but it was decided that the children who should have an automatic entitlement to pre-school education during the period of the deferral were those whose birthdays are in January and February. The Association of Directors of Education in Scotland helped to produce guidelines to try to ensure consistency in the way in which local authorities set about providing pre-school education to children whose birthdays fall between August and December. The aim is to achieve some national consistency in how deferred-entry children in that age range are granted pre-school education.

Did the funding from the Scottish Executive take cognisance of those changes?

Yes. There was a working group on the reintegration of the pre-school grant, which took into account deferred-entry children.

The Subordinate Legislation Committee report is hardly glowing, but the defects are not sufficient to justify choosing the nuclear option. I am waiting for the opportunity to choose that option. If we continue to receive reports from the Subordinate Legislation Committee that say that instruments are defectively drafted, we would be in dereliction of our duty if we did not choose that option. I make that point with the utmost generosity and kindness towards our witnesses. This might not be the occasion, but the time to take the nuclear option will come if we continue to receive defective instruments.

The convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee has offered to make a presentation to this committee.

I look forward to that with bated breath; I would be delighted to welcome the convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee to this committee. I spoke to her about the matter this morning. We are both concerned about it, as are the members of the Subordinate Legislation Committee. The problems with drafting staff are legion, but that does not mean that the Parliament should not have correctly drafted legislation.

As our witnesses may be aware, the Education, Culture and Sport Committee is rightly concerned to have properly drafted legislation. However, as the drafting errors in the order are not significant, I do not think that this is the occasion on which the committee should press the nuclear button. Having said that, I hope that the Official Report of this meeting will communicate to the Executive the fact that improperly drafted legislation is not acceptable and that, in future, the committee will take a rather dimmer view of the matter.

As a member of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, I say that it is part of our job to ensure that drafting standards are maintained. It has been suggested that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee could have an informal discussion with the Subordinate Legislation Committee's legal adviser or clerk to discuss the areas that most disturb this committee.

There is little point in having a nuclear option unless one is willing to use it. I am interested to see the number of members of the committee who are contemplating using it. I agree that this is not the time to press the button, but I have no doubt that, one day, the red phone will ring.

I get the impression that there are no recommendations from members of the committee. Do we agree that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee has no recommendations to make with regard to the order?

Members indicated agreement.

I should inform our witnesses that they got off lightly compared to civil servants who have appeared before the committee previously—I do not know whether that is the talk of the steamie yet, but I expect that it soon will be.