Education Committee, 29 Mar 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Official Report 277KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2006 (SSI 2006/88)

Some members have not returned but we are still quorate, so we will proceed with item 3. At last week's meeting, concerns were raised about the Subordinate Legislation Committee's report on the rules. We are joined by Robin McKendrick, the branch head of the support for learning division in the Scottish Executive's Education Department, and Douglas Tullis. I invite Robin McKendrick to explain the issue to which the Subordinate Legislation Committee drew our attention and to give the Executive's reasons for its response to that committee.

The Subordinate Legislation Committee sought an explanation of the relationship between rule 7 and rule 15. We responded by saying that we would consider the issue and would amend rule 7's reference to rule 15 in due course.

We have reflected further on our position and are now of the view that rule 7(2) should not refer to rule 15. The direction powers in rule 7(1) and rule 15 have distinct purposes. Although the Subordinate Legislation Committee did not seem to question the application of rule 17 to rule 7, we are now of the view that it is logical that rule 7(2) should refer only to the provisions of rule 17 as they apply to the appellant. In other words, the secretary to the Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland should have a duty to spell out to the appellant the consequences of failing to reply.

I turn to the timescale for amending the rules. As we said to the Subordinate Legislation Committee, we consider that rule 7(2) will not cause an immediate difficulty with the application of the rules. Moreover, I have now had the opportunity to speak to the president of the Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland, Ms Jessica Burns, who agreed with the Executive's view that the wording of rule 7(2) does not cause an immediate problem. She stated:

"even as Rule 7 (2) stands, it does not bring any prejudice to a parent making a reference".

Therefore, our intention is to produce an amendment towards the end of 2007 or the beginning of 2008.

The committee will be aware that we are reviewing the implementation of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 and that, as part of that process, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education will report in September 2007. Although the Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland will not be considered specifically at that stage, all the instruments will be examined and we will produce any suitable amendments, probably in 2008. The amendment that I have mentioned could be made at that time. I hope that that clears up the matter for the committee.

Do members have any questions?

I am sorry for missing that explanation, but the meeting has been going on since half past 9 and I thought that we might have suspended long enough to have a little break.

I have a brief question. Is it your conviction that the rules will not prejudice parents of children with additional support needs, although the SSI will be amended in due course?

Absolutely.

Do members have any other points that they wish to raise?

I think that Adam Ingram had one, but we have had a long meeting and he has not yet returned to the room. I must apologise to the witnesses for having to wait so long. As the lead committee on SSI 2006/88, we took seriously the issue that was raised, which is why we wanted the officials to give us an explanation. I am sorry that I missed their presentation.

I thank members for their comments. Are we agreed that we have nothing to report on SSI 2006/88?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Robin McKendrick and Douglas Tullis for their attendance.

Meeting continued in private until 13:06.