Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill. I make a point of advising members that they should, for stage 3, have a copy of the bill as amended at stage 2 and the revised marshalled list, which contains all amendments that have been selected for debate, including seven manuscript amendments that were lodged yesterday—as a consequence, there are also revised groupings.
Section 2—Co-ordinated support plans
Group 1 is on children aged two or over. Amendment 61, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, is grouped with amendments 64, 65 and 72.
Amendments 61, 64, 65 and 72 concern children who are aged two to three years. The minister asserted during stage 2 in the Education Committee that children who have extensive needs would have co-ordinated support plans from upwards of age two and a half. However, that does not go quite far enough: the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 allows children to have records of needs from two years and thus gives parents legal rights. Under that act, education authorities have a duty to identify children aged two or over but who are not yet of school age who have, or appear to have, special educational needs that are pronounced, complex or specific. Such children can also have records of needs opened and maintained for them, and the Conservatives wish the same right to apply to children aged two years and over but under five years old, because we wish our most vulnerable young people to be looked after as well in future as they were in the past.
Amendment 72 explains that "school age" should be construed as stated in section 31 of the 1980 act. That would make for consistency. I have lodged amendments 61, 64, 65 and 72 because early intervention is in the best interests of children who may, for example, have cerebral palsy. The amendments would ensure early intervention for such children and for children with other medical conditions.
I move amendment 61.
Amendments 61, 64 and 65, which are similar to amendments regarding children aged two that were considered but not pressed at stage 2, would present real practical difficulties, because they would in effect require an education authority to identify pupils for whose education they may or may not become responsible in future. It is questionable how an authority would identify such pupils: it would either have to instigate some form of inquiry or guess parents' intentions on future decisions on where to send their children for education. That would impose an unrealistic and impractical burden and would not be a sensible way for authorities to plan.
The Executive believes that amendments 61, 64 and 65 are unnecessary, because the bill will give a power to authorities to make provision for children in their early years. For example, it will introduce a duty on education authorities to prepare co-ordinated support plans for children who require them from when they attend pre-school education, and for children who are approaching that stage. In layman's terms, that will allow children with the most extensive needs to have co-ordinated support plans from two and a half years old or thereabouts. In addition, there will be a duty on education authorities to provide additional support for disabled children under three, or under five if they are not in pre-school education, if those children have been brought to their attention by health boards. The bill will also provide education authorities with a power to help all other children under three in their areas who may have additional support needs. For those collective reasons, I ask members to reject amendments 61, 64 and 65.
Amendment 72 is unnecessary because section 24(2) of the bill covers the definition of "school age" by referring to the definition in section 135(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which in turn refers to section 31 of the 1980 act—the subject of amendment 72. That amendment would therefore duplicate what is already in the bill, so I hope that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton will consider not moving it.
I support amendments 61, 64, 65 and 72 in Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's name. The amendments address a key area of the bill and cut to the heart of the issue with which we have wrestled over many months: although Parliament wants to put children at the heart of our policy in so many areas, our problem is that, although we might have joined-up thinking, we do not have joined-up legislation. A group of children are being excluded from the bill purely because the Executive wants to define what is in education authorities' remit but not what is in the health service's remit. It is not satisfactory that the Executive seeks to bounce back to the health service the responsibility to bring to education authorities' attention children of two and over—particularly those aged two—who have additional needs. It is important that we strengthen the provisions.
We heard reassurances from the Executive at stage 2 that existing legislation would cover remits in respect of two, three and four-year-olds. The problem is that there is no guarantee that every local authority has a partnership arrangement for three and four-year-olds who are in pre-school education. Are we really saying that, even if all local authorities had such arrangements, additional support would be provided only for the two and a half hours during which children were in nursery education and that, for the rest of the time, the children would be excluded from such support despite the fact that everybody knows that learning through play is vital in early years? The amendments cut to the heart of the approach to the bill. On that basis, I support the amendments.
I, too, support the amendments. The minister said that the system was not in place, but that is not the case. We already have a pre-school assessment team system and the record-of-needs system, which would be simple to transfer.
I was shocked to hear the minister say that we cannot have joined-up working. The Education Committee has just taken evidence on child protection, which focuses on joined-up working. The most vulnerable children need all agencies to work for them, including education services, at the earliest stage.
I appeal to the minister to reconsider what he said. It is important that we deal properly with children aged two or over and that we meet their early needs. Not all young people go to pre-school facilities; some go to private nurseries, because their mothers work and cannot fit in with pre-school facility hours. That means that many children will be left out of the equation. I ask the minister to think again and I hope that everyone will support the amendments.
I listened intently to the minister, but his response was wholly unsatisfactory. He asked how local authorities would be able cope with the amendments, but we know that local authorities coped with records of needs for two-year-olds. He then contradicted his argument by saying that other sections of the bill will place a duty on local authorities in relation to pre-school children. That surely means that local authorities can cope. Why should he be so parsimonious?
Rosemary Byrne made the point well that people will fall through gaps and will not be covered by the bill. The way to cover those people is by voting for Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's amendments, which are fair and considered. The amendments would simply ensure that all children were catered for equally.
I ask Lord James to reconsider his amendments. My colleagues on the Education Committee—and Brian Monteith, I hope—will appreciate that we discussed the subject at length at stage 2. As Lord James said, concern has been expressed about children who have cerebral palsy and who may wish to benefit at an early age from the facilities of a school such as the Craighalbert Centre. The committee was also concerned that the bill might remove rights that children enjoy under the 1980 act. However, the Executive has addressed those concerns. The bill was amended to place on education authorities a duty to
"provide such additional support as they consider appropriate".
It is difficult for an education authority to address needs that have not been brought to its attention, which is why health boards have a duty to identify needs and bring them to an education authority's attention. In such cases, an education authority must act. That compromise is satisfactory and will address the needs of children who attend the Craighalbert Centre. I hope that it also addressed the concerns of the committee to its satisfaction at stage 2.
I support Lord James's amendments. We must follow the philosophy that support should be provided as early as possible for all children in Scotland. For instance, a deaf child would need input almost from birth. To provide that is something that education authorities must, not just can, do.
I support the Executive's position—
Oh, yes.
I am sorry to hear such comments. The Education Committee considered in detail all the issues that arose from the bill. It does not behove people who were not involved in the committee's extensive and largely non-party-political work to make such background comments. We should deal with the issues.
The amendments in the group raise an important subject, but it has been discussed. The reality is that section 3(3A) deals with the matter to all intents and purposes. The issue is not simple; it is complex, because it ranges from involving people whose conditions or problems arise at an early stage to those whose problems are identified later, so the matter is not susceptible to the application of a single pattern. The Executive responded at stage 2 to concerns that committee members expressed in the stage 1 debate and afterwards. The Executive has produced a practical and workable response that deals with the issue.
I am not in favour of the amendments, which would add nothing. Despite Lord James's good intentions, the amendments would confuse the matter.
We tried to address the matter at stage 2. We believe that health authorities will identify the children involved and that the amendments would add nothing practical, but would, as I explained, create practical difficulties. As the Education Committee's convener and Ken Macintosh said, the matter was the subject of considerable debate at stage 2, when we lodged an amendment that was agreed to, to take members' concerns into account.
I am afraid that the minister's arguments are not persuasive, especially because he mentioned "practical difficulties". Local authorities have dealt with the situation under the record-of-needs system and have not found the "practical difficulties" to be insurmountable, so I do not see why they should be insurmountable under the bill.
We lodged the amendments to make clear the strength of our commitment to young children. We believe strongly that early intervention for a child who has special learning difficulties is extremely important. Because of that commitment, I intend to press all the amendments in the group, as they would clarify the position beyond doubt.
The question is, that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division. Members have two minutes to vote.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 46, Against 61, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 61 disagreed to.
Group 2 is on matters that give rise to the requirement for a co-ordinated support plan. Amendment 4, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 73, 5, 62, 6 and 7.
Amendment 4 aims to clear up a possible ambiguity in section 2 that the Education Committee identified at stage 2. The criteria for co-ordinated support plans include the necessity for the additional support needs of the child or young person to be enduring—they must be expected to last for more than a year. The factors that give rise to those needs can be one-off events or can perhaps happen intermittently, but the impact on the individual's learning must be long lasting. The bill is currently worded so that it is possible to read section 2(1)(b) as meaning that the factors that give rise to the additional support needs must last for more than a year. That is not the case and amendment 4 clarifies that point.
Amendment 73 is not necessary because, as I have said, Executive amendment 4 clarifies that the additional support needs must be enduring and last for more than a year rather than the factors that give rise to those needs. Regardless of that, amendment 73 would be difficult to apply in practice. It is obviously well intentioned, but it would require a prediction to be made on what was likely to recur at any time throughout a child's school career. That could involve a forecast that covers 12 years or more. I ask Fiona Hyslop not to press amendment 73. I hope that she accepts that amendment 4 covers the matter.
I oppose amendments 5, 6 and 7, as they are an attempt to broaden out the criteria for the co-ordinated support plan to a greater number of pupils. I sympathise with the reasons behind the amendments, but I do not believe that we should take such a course of action. The purpose of the co-ordinated support plan is to co-ordinate services from across agencies over the long term for the most vulnerable children and young people. That group of children and young people are those with extensive additional support needs who require additional support from a variety of sources. If the co-ordinated support plan was to be available to a wider group, for whom the impact on education and the support required were not significant, the focus would be removed from those with extensive needs to include those with much lesser needs and those who might need only minor, short-term support. That is not the intended purpose of the co-ordinated support plan.
From discussions on similar amendments at stage 2, I remember that there was concern about the use of the word "significant". I reassure members that the code of practice will address that issue—I think that we made that clear at stage 2. Section 23 specifically provides that the code will give guidance on the identification of complex and multiple factors and the nature of the significant additional support provided, for the purposes of deciding whether a co-ordinated support plan is required. It should not be forgotten that education authorities will have duties to identify additional support needs, to make adequate and efficient provision for those needs and to keep under consideration those needs and the adequacy of provision for each individual for whose school education they are responsible. Education authorities will be able to use other plans—such as individualised educational programmes—to plan the learning and additional support requirements of pupils who do not have a CSP. That matter will also be addressed in the code of practice. I therefore ask Lord James Douglas-Hamilton not to press amendments 5, 6 and 7.
I oppose amendment 62 for similar reasons. It also seeks to widen the criteria for a CSP to include pupils who receive additional support from only within education. As I have already said, the purpose of the co-ordinated support plan is to co-ordinate services from a variety of different agencies to provide the most effective package of support for the pupil. Amendment 62 would in effect undermine one of the fundamental principles of the bill. Again, I remind members that the bill already places a duty on education authorities to identify and to make adequate and efficient provision for each child and young person for whom they are responsible, irrespective of whether they have a CSP. Therefore, I ask Fiona Hyslop not to press amendment 62.
I move amendment 4.
I will speak first to amendments 73 and 4, which are connected. I acknowledge the fact that the Executive has taken on board the point that the SNP made at stage 2 about the factors themselves not being the passport to the co-ordinated support plan. The concerns are particularly about children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation that will not last for 12 months and whose parents have episodic mental health problems, for example. Perhaps the most tragic example would be the child of a murder victim. The incident and the factor might have occurred only once, but the need for support might continue for a long time. Therefore, I welcome amendment 4.
Amendment 4 goes part of the way towards addressing my concerns. However, I lodged amendment 73 because it does not address the particular issue relating to the 12-month period. The minister said that my amendment 73 is well intentioned, but I suggest to him that it is also well sourced, as the wording comes from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The amendment reflects the wording of paragraph 2(2) of schedule 1 to that act in trying to define a situation in which needs might not be conclusive or continuing over 12 months, but are likely to recur, so that there is a need for a co-ordinated support plan over a period of time. The needs may be episodic just as much as the factor that caused them in the first place may be episodic. I gave the example of a child of a murder victim. The consequences of the murder might be long standing, and the educational support needs might vary and recur over a period of time; support will not necessarily be required only once. My intentions in lodging the amendment were good, although I recognise the Executive's efforts in amendment 4.
As the minister said, amendment 62 concerns the fundamentals of the bill. The aspect of the bill that causes the greatest concern is the two-tier, or three-tier, system for co-ordinated support plans and additional support for learning in general that is being developed. The Parliament has persuaded the Executive to include in the bill section 2A, which imposes a general duty in respect of additional support needs, but the Executive has not addressed the fundamental point about why children whose needs can be met solely by the education authority—in particular, children who have dyslexia or autistic spectrum disorder—should be excluded from having the rights that other children in relation to whom the health authority is involved will be given. Is it not ironic that the Executive has just rejected an amendment because it did not want health authorities to be integral and wanted them to identify two-year-olds but, all of a sudden, health authorities are part and parcel and a fundamental part of the bill? There is muddled and disjointed thinking by the Executive.
If the issue comes down to resources, why does the Executive not admit that the bill is only about administration? It is about reducing the number of children who currently have records of needs from 4,000 to the 2,000 who will get a co-ordinated support plan. The minister has made great efforts to say that those who will not have a co-ordinated support plan will still have their additional support needs met, but anybody with any experience of local authorities and support provision will know that some criteria must be used for limited resources. I believe that the approach is very much to be regretted and that amendment 62 is fundamental.
Individualised educational programmes and personal learning plans are ideas whose time is yet to come. They might be part of a universal system in the future, but they are not in the bill here and now. We have a right and a duty to stand up for children who have additional support needs but who will not get a CSP, and we should allow them the same legal rights. The issue is one of fairness and equity. Amendment 62 is fundamental to the bill and I support it.
I will speak to amendments 5, 6 and 7. On amendment 5, the word "significant" needs to be deleted to avoid the current practice of some local authorities and health boards, whereby the service that is offered is based not on the child's needs, but on what staffing is available given case loads and so on. That could mean that a child would not qualify for a co-ordinated support plan not because of their needs, but simply because of restrictions on the availability of provision.
With regard to amendments 6 and 7, the word "significant" could exclude many children who could usefully be considered. The adverse effect that arises from a child's additional support needs will be different in every case. Each child's potential is different, so it would be impossible to determine the effects of factors or multiple factors.
I do not think that the minister's responses to Fiona Hyslop's amendments at the committee meetings were persuasive. The crux of the matter is that each child's additional support needs should be weighed on their merits and should not be excluded because they are not considered to be significant.
I support Fiona Hyslop's amendments, particularly amendment 62, which rightly widens the criteria for a co-ordinated support plan. We lodged amendments that were broadly similar at stage 2, and I believe that it is right for the Parliament's opinion to be tested.
I will speak to amendment 62. Despite the minister's assurance that education authorities will have a duty to identify and address the additional support needs of all pupils for whom they are responsible, there is a great deal of scepticism among parents about whether such an approach will operate in practice.
The resources that are available to education authorities are limited. Such resources should be allocated in a targeted way, according to need. The reality is that children who are in receipt of a co-ordinated support plan will have first call on those resources. With the best will in the world, I cannot see how we can avoid a situation in which a CSP becomes a passport to services, in much the same way as the record of needs is now.
Possession of a CSP will confer legal rights and, crucially, will provide access to the new tribunals. Many children have complex and multiple difficulties that require a co-ordinated response from education authorities—children with autism or dyslexia come to mind. There is a great danger that those children, many of whom are currently provided for by the record-of-needs system, will fall through the safety net that the bill designs. Amendment 62 would allow for an appropriate expansion of the eligibility criteria for a CSP, to ensure that that does not happen.
I oppose amendment 62. It is important for people to understand that one of the main reasons for the bill is to include a much wider group of pupils. A major group that the bill includes under the definition of additional support needs is pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties. One of the problems in the past was the fact that those youngsters could not be included in consideration for a record of needs, even if they had major problems and required extensive interagency work. I welcome the fact that the bill is more inclusive.
Another reason for the bill was to address the failure of agencies to work together effectively. The bill gives local authorities and other agencies the duty and responsibility to work together. Overall, the bill includes a wider range of pupils, but it is important to remember that the children with the greatest needs have the greatest protection. I urge members to oppose amendments 62, 73, 5, 6 and 7 and to support amendment 4.
I welcome amendment 4 in the name of the minister. I support all the amendments in the group, but I will focus on amendment 62.
It is crucial to broaden access to co-ordinated support plans. Under the bill, we have a three-tier system, but we could have had a single, universal system with access for all children who require it. We now have an adversarial system and, at the outset, parents will seek redress through the tribunals to have their child considered for a CSP. There was no need for the bill to go along that road, but given that it has, the best that we can do is to try to broaden access to CSPs.
Rhona Brankin says that we are looking to create an inclusive system, and I agree with that. I welcome the broadening of additional support needs to include children with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. However, we are also narrowing the definition and, as Adam Ingram and Fiona Hyslop said, we are excluding the large and significant group of young people who have dyslexia, are on the autistic spectrum or have dyspraxia or other syndromes. In many cases, those children have a lot of needs, but they will not be dealt with by more than one agency. That should not be a reason to exclude anyone from access to the support that they require, so I ask the minister to reconsider and to support the amendments.
There has been a broad welcome for amendment 4, but I am bound to say that the arguments that have been adduced in favour of the other amendments constitute a fundamental misunderstanding of the bill. I have some difficulty in seeing how some of Rosemary Byrne's comments could be made following the Education Committee's consideration of the bill.
We are not reducing rights, but changing rights—a different system will come into place. The record-of-needs system applied to children in certain situations; however, under the bill's provisions—particularly those in section 2A—there will be a general duty on local authorities to provide for additional support needs. There is a mainstreaming approach to the matter, and within that approach there is a focus on co-ordinated support plans, which, as Adam Ingram said, lead to certain rights in relation to tribunals. There is a specific issue about that, but it is quite wrong to say that the bill will lead to an adversarial situation. It will not do so; the bill is designed to encourage mediation and the early sorting out of problems. It encourages a situation in which things are dealt with at the school level and it mainstreams the arrangements that are made for the provision of additional support. I oppose the amendments, which would damage the bill. They would not achieve the objectives that their proposers intend.
I endorse Robert Brown's and Rhona Brankin's comments. I support the Executive's amendment 4, and I urge members to reject the other amendments in the group. I alert members to the fact that the issues and concerns that are coming up today are not new. They were debated extensively at stage 2 and the committee reached agreement on them.
I will not pretend that there are not anxieties, particularly for those who have enjoyed a record of needs and are concerned either that the statutory entitlements that they had will not be echoed in a CSP or that they will not get a CSP. However, it is wrong to see co-ordinated support plans as the be-all and end-all of the bill. The rights that were previously the preserve of those who benefited from a record of needs are now extended to all children with additional support needs.
The danger of widening the definition of those who qualify for a CSP is that we could merely replicate the failings of the record-of-needs system, which the bill is designed to counter. The co-ordinated support plan is not the gatekeeper or, as Adam Ingram called it, the passport to the support or resources that a child needs—that is the role of the bill. It is not the CSP that guarantees resources, but the bill, and the bill does that for all children. The CSP recognises that for some children a level of co-ordination is required between the different authorities. It recognises the fact that a statutory document might be required for those with complex needs, to ensure that the joined-up approach that we all talk about actually happens. I urge members to reject the amendments—except the Executive amendment—in the group.
I support amendments 5, 6 and 7 because I believe that "significant" is a weasel word that should be removed. Children that are deserving of additional support are just that. Imagine, for instance, that we said that an MSP may become a minister only if they have a significant majority. How would we define that? Would Euan Robson be defined as having a "significant" majority? Would Peter Peacock, who does not even have a majority at all? "Significant" is a weasel word. Both men are worthy of being ministers; all children who are deserving of additional support deserve that support. Let us remove the word "significant".
I am glad that members have generally welcomed amendment 4, which I believe covers the circumstances that Fiona Hyslop mentioned.
On additional rights, the bill will for the first time give children and young people who have additional support needs a right to that support. Section 2A, which was thoroughly debated at stage 2, is inclusive, as it covers the whole spectrum of needs. The point about co-ordinated support plans is that they will focus on the most vulnerable children who have the most extensive needs. In addition, section 2A extends the duty of education authorities by requiring them to assess all children and young people for whom they are responsible. Furthermore, section 2A, which was inserted at stage 2, makes it perfectly clear that education authorities have an on-going duty towards those children. Moreover, as I said at stage 2, that new duty is inspectable by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education.
Amendment 62 would undermine the bill. It would be divisive in a way that the bill is not. Robert Brown and Ken Macintosh are correct to say that amendment 62 would significantly extend the duties of education authorities. I hope that Parliament will reject amendment 62. Members should be reassured that the new extension that is provided for in section 2A will be generally welcomed.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Amendment 73 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].
The question is, that amendment 73 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 61, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 73 disagreed to.
Amendment 5 moved—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton].
The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 44, Against 61, Abstentions 5.
Amendment 5 disagreed to.
Amendment 62 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].
The question is, that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 61, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 62 disagreed to.
Amendments 6 and 7 not moved.
After section 2
Group 3 is on children and young persons who lack capacity. Amendment 8 is grouped with amendments 8A, 16 to 19, 21, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 34 to 37, 39, 41, 43, 46, 54 and 59.
Amendment 8 and amendments 16 to 19, 21, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 34 to 37, 39, 41, 43, 46, 54 and 59 are all intrinsically linked.
We lodged the amendments in response to the Education Committee's concerns that the bill's use of the term "incapable" is presentationally insensitive and possibly pejorative. We consulted Sense Scotland, which had also expressed concerns about the presentational impact of the word "incapable", and I believe that Sense Scotland is pleased with the amendments.
Amendment 8 sets the scene for the other amendments because it defines children who lack capacity and moves that definition up front. The other amendments will replace the phrase "is incapable" with "lacks capacity", but amendment 8 is important because it sets the context for each and every time that the term is used.
I hope that members will agree that the amendments are a satisfactory solution to the concerns that were rightly expressed by the Education Committee. The Executive has taken those concerns on board, so I recommend that all those amendments should be accepted.
I ask Parliament to resist amendment 8A, which would include children and young people with developmental disorders in the definition of those who lack capacity. My main concern with amendment 8A is that the term "developmental disorder" is very broad. In practice, the term can be used to describe delayed development of language and of communication and social skills and delayed physical growth. Ken Macintosh provides no further definition of what is meant by a developmental disorder in this context. That means that, for example, a child or young person who is dyspraxic or who has not physically grown as expected might be considered to lack capacity when that might not be the case. I ask members to reject amendment 8A primarily for that reason.
Frankly, I would be concerned if the scenario that I have described were to become a reality, given the potential for the assumption to be made that, because someone has a developmental disorder, they automatically lack capacity. Clearly, that is not always the case. I doubt that it is Ken Macintosh's intention to suggest otherwise and invite him not to move amendment 8A.
I move amendment 8.
Before discussing amendment 8A, I will deal with the other amendments in the group. Two concerns about capacity were expressed during stage 2. The first was that the language of the bill is pejorative. Like all other members, I am grateful to the minister for the series of amendments that the Executive has lodged to tackle that issue. The second concern, which was floated by my colleague Scott Barrie, in particular, was that we are not consistent in offering children with capacity the opportunity to make decisions that affect their future. The Executive amendments do not address that issue and I would welcome comments from the minister on how it will be addressed as we move forward.
Having seen Executive amendment 8, the National Autistic Society contacted me to point out that the amendment names different groups of disabilities but that autism does not fall into any of the categories that are specified. Autism is a developmental disorder, not a mental health problem or a learning disability. I say in response to the minister that it is recognised as a developmental disorder in the 10th edition of the "International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries and Causes of Death" and in the fourth edition of the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders". I have lodged amendment 8A to ensure that the bill recognises children and young people with autistic spectrum disorder and does not leave them in a legal black hole when it comes to issues relating to capacity.
I was not persuaded by the minister's argument that there could be confusion and that anyone with a developmental disorder would automatically be assumed not to have capacity. There is no such presumption, just as there is no presumption that anyone with a mental health problem will not have capacity. It is not possible for the logic that applies to the minister's definition not to apply to mine. I would welcome further comments from the minister. In particular, I would like to hear from him how he intends to address the situation of children who have autistic spectrum disorder and do not appear to be covered by Executive amendment 8, but who would be covered if the minister accepted amendment 8A.
I move amendment 8A.
I want to address the issue of extending rights to children under 16. I appreciate the amendments that the Executive has lodged, which take on board concerns that the Education Committee, in particular, has raised. However, the Executive recognises that the issue of how we treat the rights of children aged 12 and over is outstanding. The minister has suggested that it may be addressed in a proposed children's services bill. This is not necessarily just a children's issue or a matter for the Education Committee—perhaps the justice committees should consider the spectrum of legal rights in relation to capacity and age. I recognise that the bill makes provision for consultation with children and young people throughout and that the Executive amendments help to address the matter in the bill. However, this is an outstanding issue to which I hope the Parliament will return in future.
We support the minister's amendments. Amendment 8A, in the name of Ken Macintosh, is designed to ensure that children with autism do not fall into a legal black hole and has the support of the National Autistic Society. There is grave concern among people who care for those who suffer from autism. We are sympathetic to amendment 8A and hope that the minister will accept it.
Ken Macintosh indicated that at stage 2 I lodged a series of amendments that sought to address the issue of capacity, with particular reference to children's and young persons' rights. The aim of those amendments was to ensure that a child or young person with capacity should be able to initiate the process through which decisions are reached about his or her additional needs. It is particularly important that the principle contained in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 should be reiterated in the bill. Too often in the past, children's and young persons' rights have not been consistently dealt with throughout our child care legislation.
I am grateful to the minister for the assurance that he gave at stage 2 that he would meet me and for the series of meetings that we have had. It is clear that we need to ensure that the bill is consistent not only with the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 but with other major pieces of legislation, such as the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991 and the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. I agree that it is essential that the principle is established across the range of our child care law and thank the minister for his recent letter, in which he reiterates that point. I assure him that I look forward to working with him and the Education Committee to address the issue and to ensure that all our child care and child welfare legislation is consistent on the important point of children's rights.
Like other members, I support Executive amendment 8. I want to comment briefly on amendment 8A, in the name of Ken Macintosh, which does not hit the nail on the head. There may or may not be an issue, but there is not a legal black hole. If we inserted the reference to "developmental disorder" where the member suggests, it would not meet the objective that he has set himself. As the minister said, that would mean placing people with developmental disorders automatically in the situation of incapacity, which is not Ken Macintosh's intention. The issue may be to do with the point in the bill where the member seeks to insert the term. It may be possible to deal with the matter in another way and I do not think that amendment 8A is the right way of dealing it.
I welcome amendment 8 and acknowledge the work that Scott Barrie, in particular, has done to bring this matter to the attention of the Education Committee. I am grateful that the Executive has taken his arguments on board and has dealt with the issue in this way.
I, too, am not convinced by the minister's arguments against amendment 8A. Neither am I convinced by Mr Brown's arguments. I admit that "developmental disorder" is a wide term and can cover all manner of things. However, "mental illness" is also a wide term—someone does not necessarily lack capacity because they have a mental illness or, indeed, because they have a learning disability. If someone has a developmental disorder, they will not necessarily fall into either of those categories. If a young person has an extreme form of autism that makes them unable to communicate their wishes, they may fall into category 1. However, if they have a condition such as Asperger's syndrome they will not fall into that category, any more than a child with a mild form of mental illness would. I do not follow the logic of the minister's argument and would like to hear a little more.
I rise to support the amendment in the name of Ken Macintosh. I have received a large mailbag on this issue, mostly from parents of autistic children who feel that their children have been excluded from the bill and who have urged me to vote against it. The Executive will be glad to know that I do not intend to take that course. However, it is very important that the parents to whom I refer should be able to see that the bill addresses their concerns in some way. I urge members to vote for amendment 8A.
I am sympathetic to the amendment in the name of Ken Macintosh. The minister needs to provide further explanation of why amendment 8A is not necessary, because I do not accept the arguments that he has made to date. The amendment is one way of addressing the position of children with autism. I hope that he will reconsider the matter.
I will respond first to the point made by Scott Barrie, whose amendments were an important contribution to the work of the Education Committee at stage 2. I appreciate that he made that contribution in the form of probing amendments. We have made it clear that we will examine in more detail the issue of children's and young people's rights by working with the Education Committee and interested members such as Scott Barrie. We were concerned that if such an amendment were made to the bill we would be making piecemeal legislation when a more comprehensive view of the existing body of statute is needed. Scott Barrie was right to refer to the relevant provision of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, which does not, however, appear in other pieces of legislation. Consultation on and wide discussion of the matter is needed. We would be pleased to undertake such consultation.
I turn to the important issue that Ken Macintosh has raised. I am sensitive to the point that he made about autism, but I do not believe that there is a legislative black hole. Although we acknowledge his concerns about this matter, we are concerned that amendment 8A might have unintended consequences in certain areas. For example, a child who has dyspraxia might not actually lack capacity; however, amendment 8A would affect a child in that particular circumstance.
We feel that we can cover members' concerns on this matter in the regulations and the code of practice. Although I understand the point that Ken Macintosh is making and acknowledge that amendment 8A is very well intentioned, it is not our view that one particular group will be affected by some black hole in the legislation. That said, if members still have doubts, I am prepared to consider Mr Macintosh's specific points in the regulations and the code of practice.
I welcome some of the minister's comments. Indeed, I welcome many of the comments that members around the chamber have made and the support that they have expressed for amendment 8A. I also generally welcome the Executive's amendments on capacity issues.
That said, I am still not persuaded by the Executive's argument. I do not accept that adding the term "developmental disorder" does anything other than cover a condition that is not currently covered in subsection (1) in amendment 8. After all, the Executive clearly does not intend to exclude children with autism from these provisions.
Robin Harper made the very good point that many parents and children with autism are anxious about the bill and have many reasons why they feel that the bill does not address their needs. I think that they are wrong and that their anxiety is misplaced. In fact, I hope that the bill's provisions will mean a huge improvement for all children with autism. However, if amendment 8A is agreed to, we will send out a strong message that children with autism and developmental disorders are included in these provisions. As a result, I will press the amendment.
The question is, that amendment 8A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 56, Against 50, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 8A agreed to.
There is very little time to speak on this matter, but I have to ask the minister whether he intends—
To resign.
I think that that might be a bit excessive at this stage. At the moment, I am interested only in knowing whether he intends to press amendment 8, as amended.
Yes.
Amendment 8, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2A—Duties of education authority in relation to children and young persons for whom they are responsible
I ask Lord James Douglas-Hamilton to indicate whether he intends to move amendment 64, which was previously debated with amendment 61.
As we have already voted on the principle, I will not move amendment 64.
Amendment 64 not moved.
Group 4 is on the general powers and duties of education authorities. Amendment 9, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 10, 74, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 25.
Amendments 9, 12 and 15 have been lodged in response to debates during stage 2 on the application of subjective rather than objective criteria by education authorities. At stage 2, I undertook to examine the bill to ensure that there was consistency in that matter.
As a result, amendment 9 seeks to replace the subjective criteria in section 2A(1)(b) with an objective criterion in relation to the authority's arrangements for monitoring and reviewing the additional support needs of each child and young person. The effect of the amendment will be that, instead of education authorities simply considering whether the arrangements are appropriate, they must ensure that the arrangements are appropriate.
Similarly, amendments 12 and 15 seek to replace the subjective criteria in section 3(3A) and (4) in relation to the additional support that will be provided for the individual. Instead, the additional support must be appropriate rather than what the education authority considers to be appropriate.
On amendments 10 and 25, I listened carefully at stage 2 to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's comments about adequacy and effectiveness. Indeed, the issue of effectiveness was raised several times at stage 2 but was rejected each time. Amendment 10 and the similarly worded amendment 25 are unnecessary. An education authority that makes adequate and efficient provision must also, by the very nature of that provision, be providing effective provision. If provision is ineffective, it cannot be adequate. We feel that it is sufficient to keep the adequacy of additional support under consideration, as that will also ensure that it is effective. As a result, I ask members to reject amendments 10 and 25.
Amendment 74 is intended to remove any consideration of public expenditure when an education authority makes provision to meet the additional support needs of the pupils for whom they are responsible. However, remaining silent on that matter, which would be the consequence of the amendment, is unrealistic. After all, an education authority should not be obliged to incur unreasonable expenditure. I should make it clear that the consideration of costs is not the primary concern when making provision for additional support needs. It is right that, as a public body that is accountable for public funds, an education authority should consider the reasonableness of incurring any public expenditure. As we feel that we have achieved the right balance in that respect, I ask members to reject amendment 74.
Amendment 11, in the name of Rosemary Byrne, is unclear and unnecessary. For example, its reference to "the best interests" of the child or young person is not clear. Does that mean the best interests in an educational context or does it include all types of interests? Moreover, the amendment is unnecessary because we already have legislation that governs education authorities' duties with regard to individual children. Indeed, that legislation includes a duty to ensure that education is directed at developing
"the personality, talents and mental and physical abilities of the child or young person to their fullest potential".
As a result, I ask members to reject amendments 11 and 14.
I move amendment 9.
Because of time pressures, I ask Lord James Douglas-Hamilton to take only a minute to speak to amendments 10, 14 and 25.
I will cut short my remarks and speak in particular to amendments 10 and 25. At stage 2, the committee convener, Robert Brown, had the courage to lodge amendments that suggested that the word "effectiveness" was better than the word "adequacy". Indeed, when the minister disagreed, Mr Brown went so far as to resist the minister's blandishments by abstaining in the vote.
If the Executive was described as adequate rather than effective, that might be taken to mean that the Executive was less than whole-hearted in its purpose. If the bill is to stand the test of time, it will have to be not just adequate, but effective. According to the dictionary, "adequate" means that something is able to fulfil a need or requirement without being abundant and "effective" means that something is productive or is capable of producing a result. All members would wish to pass a bill that is capable of producing a result for children with additional support needs.
I appeal to the minister as a fair-minded man to be fair to himself and accept amendments 10 and 25. Would it not be better if in his handling of the bill the minister was remembered for his effectiveness and not just for his adequacy? After all, none of us wish him to be remembered for having delusions of adequacy.
I call Donald Gorrie to speak to amendment 74. You also have only one minute, Mr Gorrie.
Amendment 74 would delete from section 2A the words:
"would result in unreasonable public expenditure being incurred."
The minister has moved a little on that subject, but the wording in the bill still leaves the door open for councils not to provide adequate facilities. The background to my amendment is the widespread scepticism that has been repeatedly expressed to the cross-party group on autistic spectrum disorder, especially by parents of people with autistic spectrum disorder. They are totally sceptical about councils fulfilling their duties.
It is essential that the minister either accepts amendment 74 or ensures that the guidance and the code set out very clearly what he has said. There should be wording to the effect that the priority is to meet the best interests of the child in terms of adequate and appropriate levels of support. There must be no room for manoeuvre for a council to fail to provide adequate support just because it has a wee problem with its budget. It is an important issue and what the minister says is of great significance.
Rosemary Byrne also has one minute.
I want to speak to amendment 11, which is in my name. The wording that I want to add to section 3, under the heading "General functions of education authority in relation to additional support needs", is important. I disagree with the minister. Amendment 11 seeks simply to ask that the best interests of the child be taken into account by every education authority in any of its functions in connection with the provision of school education and, in this case, specifically in connection with the additional support needs of children and young people.
I can cite many instances in which the best interests of the child are not necessarily always at the forefront. For example, there are children on the autistic spectrum who are at present being taught in support bases in our mainstream schools and whose parents are at odds with the education authority because they desire an autistic-specific education rather than an autistic-friendly education. That is a good example of an instance in which young people are being let down by the system. I urge members to support amendment 11.
I am afraid that there is no time for anyone else to contribute or for me to call the minister to respond.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Amendment 10 moved—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton].
The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 60, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 10 disagreed to.
Amendment 74, in the name of Donald Gorrie, has already been debated with amendment 9. Mr Gorrie, do you wish to move amendment 74?
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it possible for the minister to respond? Whether or not I press my amendment depends on that.
No, that is not possible.
I shall press the amendment.
Amendment 74 moved—[Donald Gorrie].
The question is, that amendment 74 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 13, Against 82, Abstentions 17.
Amendment 74 disagreed to.
Section 3—General functions of education authority in relation to additional support needs
Amendment 11 moved—[Ms Rosemary Byrne].
The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 52, Against 61, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 11 disagreed to.
Amendment 12 moved—[Euan Robson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 14 moved—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton].
The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division. Members who wish to support amendment 14 should press their request-to-speak buttons now. I am sorry—I mean that they should press their yes buttons now. My tongue is working faster than my brain, I am afraid.
That is not hard.
No change there. I look forward to Ms Brankin's next speech in three years' time.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 52, Against 58, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 14 disagreed to.
Amendment 15 moved—[Euan Robson]—and agreed to.
Section 4—Children and young persons for whom education authority are responsible
Amendment 65 not moved.
Amendment 16 moved—[Euan Robson]—and agreed to.
Section 5—Other children and young persons
Amendments 17 and 18 moved—[Euan Robson]—and agreed to.
Section 6—Assessments and examinations
Amendment 19 moved—[Euan Robson]—and agreed to.
Group 5 is on assessments and examinations. Amendment 66, in the name of Rosemary Byrne, is grouped with amendments 67 and 71.
I shall discuss all the amendments in this group together, as amendments 66 and 71 are consequential on amendment 67. I have had concerns about section 6 from the outset, and my colleagues on the Education Committee will be aware of the fact that I have taken up the issue of assessment since the beginning of our deliberations. I have looked at the issue in many different ways and I had hoped that there would be some improvement.
My concerns about section 6 are about multidisciplinary assessment and correct diagnosis so that appropriate support can be put in place for children and young people. In my experience, one of the most crucial areas of concern to parents is often the fact that the correct assessment has not been carried out on their child. I have met many parents who have taken years to discover that their child is dyspraxic when problems in the early stages of school had been put down to bad behaviour or bad parenting.
I have looked carefully to see whether the bill improves that situation, because a new bill should, after all, introduce something that will make life easier not only for the parents and the child but for the education system, which should be able to assess, examine, diagnose and provide the correct and appropriate support. Children and young people with autistic spectrum disorder often require the expertise of many agencies in order to get a proper diagnosis and proper support. All too often, that is an area of great concern. A huge amount of expertise is needed to diagnose and assess in those areas. Amendments 66 and 67 would allow multidisciplinary assessments to be carried out and I hope that the amendments will be supported.
I move amendment 66.
We support amendment 66 because we believe that it would allow more people to be considered for the carrying out of assessments. Amendment 67 tightens up the duty on local authorities, which is appropriate. Amendment 71 would provide that the code of practice could make it clear which appropriate professionals can request a multidisciplinary assessment. The amendments are worthy of support.
Rosemary Byrne identifies an important issue, which the committee, too, was concerned about. However, the remedy that she suggests is not right. The issue is complex and different situations require different remedies. The proper way to deal with the detail of the issue is through the code of practice. I urge the chamber to reject the amendments.
The effect of amendment 66 would be that anyone could have a say in who is or is not an appropriate person to carry out an assessment or examination. I do not believe that that is what Rosemary Byrne intended. The bill includes provision for ensuring that the views of parents, children and young people are taken into account. Education authorities must also take into account any information that parents or young people submit or that has been submitted on their behalf.
Amendment 67 is not necessary. Section 6 already allows the parent or young person to request an assessment and there is nothing to preclude the parent from requesting a range of multidisciplinary assessments. Amendment 71 is consequential on amendments 66 and 67, so I also resist that.
I disagree with Robert Brown. I believe that this is the correct road to take. Although I welcome the broadening out that gives parents access to request assessments, I do not think that we have gone far enough. In many cases, parents already request assessments, but they do not get the correct assessment, and the appropriate people are not making those assessments. I will press amendment 66.
The question is, that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Against
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 59, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 66 disagreed to.
Amendment 67 moved—[Ms Rosemary Byrne].
The question is, that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Against
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 59, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 67 disagreed to.
Section 7—Duty to prepare co-ordinated support plans
Amendment 20, in the name of Rhona Brankin, is grouped with amendments 1, 22, 23, 28, 30, 91, 2, 3, 33, 33A, 33B, 33C, 33D and 93. If amendment 20 is agreed to, amendments 1 and 21 are pre-empted. If amendment 91 is agreed to, amendments 2 and 31 are pre-empted. If amendment 33A is agreed to, amendment 33B is pre-empted. If amendment 33C is agreed to, amendment 33D is pre-empted. I hope that you have all got that.
I will speak to amendment 20 and the consequential amendments 91, 33A, 33B, 33C and 33D. Section 7(1A) states that education authorities
"need not comply with the duty"
to prepare co-ordinated support plans when the parent or young person agrees with that. That could fundamentally undermine the rights of parents and young people to have a co-ordinated support plan opened when the criteria are met.
One of the main policies driving the bill is the need to ensure that children with additional support needs have the same right to have those needs met wherever they live in Scotland. One of the main criticisms of the previous record-of-needs legislation was the variation with which it was applied in different local authorities.
Another main policy behind the bill is the need to ensure continuity of provision when children with a CSP move to a school in a different local authority. In such cases, the CSP is vital to ensuring that the receiving authority can make appropriate provision quickly.
The bill seeks to establish new rights for children with additional support needs and their parents. However, as it stands, the bill will allow local authorities too much flexibility in interpreting the legislation. The danger is that it tips the balance away from the rights of parents and children and towards the rights of local authorities. There is also a danger that it could act as a get-out clause for local authorities that might be concerned about bureaucracy. One of the bill's benefits is that it will reduce bureaucracy.
There is also a concern that looked-after children could be seriously disadvantaged. If the local authority is acting as the parent, how can it agree with itself not to open a co-ordinated support plan? How are the rights of the young person protected in that instance?
Parents who are well aware of their rights under the legislation will be able to insist that a co-ordinated support plan is opened, but there is a danger that those parents who are less well informed about their rights might be persuaded that a co-ordinated support plan is not necessary even though it might be in their and their children's interests to have a plan. Those are the reasons behind amendment 20 and the consequential amendments.
I move amendment 20.
I, too, have serious concerns about the stage 2 amendment that was lodged at the suggestion of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Amendments 1, 2 and 3 seek to protect the rights of looked-after children in particular. As Rhona Brankin said, the local authority will have rights as a provider and as the parent. I lodged amendments 1, 2 and 3 because I was concerned that the balance had shifted from the rights of parents back towards those of local authorities.
We have grappled with that issue throughout consideration of the bill, as has the Executive—hence amendment 33. If the Executive were so relaxed about the fact that there might be agreement not to have CSPs, why is there an extensive amendment to compensate for the fact that there might be problems? I realise that if amendment 20 is passed, it will pre-empt amendments 1, 2 and 3, but I think that the logical path is to support amendment 20. Although Rhona Brankin and I have disagreed on a number of issues while considering the bill, I think that we can come together on this one.
If there is logic to it, COSLA's case can be made at a later stage when the legislation has bedded in. The issue is to do with trust, and the jury is out among parents as to whether they can trust local authorities to deliver. We should wait and see before accepting that case. I urge members to take the commonsense approach and support amendment 20. If that fails, they should support amendments 1, 2 and 3.
I start by speaking to amendment 33 and consequential amendments 22 and 28. In light of the committee's deliberations, I lodged those amendments to qualify the amendments that were accepted at stage 2 on the provision for agreement not to prepare or continue a co-ordinated support plan. I have since had further discussions with members, and I listened carefully to Rhona Brankin's eloquent summary of the reasons for her amendments. I am now prepared to accept amendments 20, 93 and 91. I will therefore not move amendment 33 and consequential amendments 22 and 28.
Amendment 23 is straightforward. Its purpose is to ensure that a co-ordinated support plan contains the name and contact details of the person who is co-ordinating the provision of the additional support under the CSP, whether that person is part of the authority or outwith the authority. As the bill is worded, the details would be recorded on the CSP only when the person was outwith the authority. That was not the intention and it needs to be changed. It is likely that the majority of CSPs will be co-ordinated by a member of the education staff. It is important that the CSP is specific about who is taking the co-ordinating role. Amendment 23 will ensure that that happens.
Amendment 30 is a minor technical amendment to tidy up section 9(6). I will not go into the details.
I understand fully why Fiona Hyslop lodged amendments 1, 2 and 3 but, in accepting amendment 20, we will accept the will of Parliament.
I am grateful that the minister is going to accept amendment 20, for which we have considerable sympathy. The interests of the child should be paramount, but there might have been exceptional circumstances in which section 7(1A) did not find itself in accordance with the best interests of the child.
Rhona Brankin gave a persuasive speech. There is strong support for her amendments from Children in Scotland and Barnardo's Scotland. The research and policy officer of Barnardo's Scotland sent a strong e-mail to that effect. He goes by the name of Douglas Hamilton and, in all fairness, I see no reason why Douglas-Hamilton cannot support Douglas Hamilton.
I, too, am pleased that the Executive has accepted amendment 20. Rhona Brankin is to be congratulated on the doggedness with which she has pursued her concern. Section 7(1A), which was introduced at stage 2, was stimulated by confusion, originally from COSLA, about who might be eligible for a co-ordinated support plan. That confusion has been erased and there is now considerably more clarity about who is eligible. I am grateful to the Executive for agreeing that subsection (1A) should be removed.
Amendments 33A to 33D are unnecessary, because amendment 20 will supersede amendment 33.
I congratulate Rhona Brankin on lodging amendment 20 and the Executive on accepting it. There was an unacceptable risk in the bill that young children would not get the service that they deserve. That risk will now be removed, for which I am thankful.
I, too, congratulate Rhona Brankin on amendment 20 and the consequential amendments, and I am glad that the Executive is accepting them. The record-of-needs system has led to wide differentiation in the way that records of need are used in Scotland, particularly since the creation of 32 local education authorities under local government reorganisation. If we are to have a new way of dealing with youngsters who require additional support, it is important that we have a much more consistent system throughout Scotland. Section 7(1A), which was inserted at stage 2, would have led to the opposite, and to the system that we have at the moment, so I am glad that the situation will be remedied by the removal of that subsection.
I very much welcome the Executive's change of heart. There may have been a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of COSLA. Any potential new bureaucracy around the bill will need to be monitored closely. I welcome the Executive's change of heart, which restores my belief that the bill will give parents and children significant new rights.
Amendment 20 agreed to.
Minister, will you move amendment 22?
It is consequential, so I will not move it.
Amendment 22 not moved.
Amendments 23 and 24 moved—[Euan Robson]—and agreed to.
Section 8—Reviews of co-ordinated support plans
Amendment 25 not moved.
Amendment 26 moved—[Euan Robson]—and agreed to.
Section 9—Co-ordinated support plans: further provision
Amendments 27 to 30 moved—[Euan Robson]—and agreed to.
I remind members that if amendment 91 is agreed to, it will pre-empt amendments 2 and 31.
Amendment 91 moved—[Rhona Brankin]—and agreed to.
Amendment 3, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, has been debated with amendment 20. Are you moving amendment 3, Ms Hyslop?
Can you clarify whether amendment 3 is pre-empted by amendment 20?
It is not pre-empted.
Amendment 3 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Martin, Campbell (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 53, Against 60, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 disagreed to.
Group 7 is on education authorities' duty to inform. Amendment 32, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 90, 53 and 55. If amendment 90 is agreed to, amendment 53 will be pre-empted.
Amendment 32 is a minor technical amendment to tidy up the bill to avoid duplication of the provision that it is intended to introduce with amendment 55. It will delete reference in section 9(9) to the form and manner in which an education authority will be required to give information to parents, young people and managers of independent and grant-aided schools.
Section 23A makes specific provision on information that is to be provided when authorities decide not to comply with requests. Amendment 55 is intended to add a provision on the form in which information is to be given to parents and young people. Amendment 55 provides that when an education authority communicates with parents or young people under the bill, they do so in writing. Alternatively, that communication may be in another form that is capable of some permanence, where that other form is appropriate, given the communication needs of the recipient. Therefore section 9(9)(g) is no longer required.
On amendment 53, I gave a commitment at stage 2 to consider the wording of an amendment lodged by Fiona Hyslop. I said at the time that I wanted to ensure that when a refusal of a request gives rise to a right of referral to the tribunals, that right is highlighted in any education authority response. The bill has been examined for any inconsistencies. Amendment 53 will plug the gap. Reference will be made in section 23A to section 4(2)(b), which refers to an education authority's refusal to consider a child or young person's requirement for a co-ordinated support plan.
I oppose amendment 90 on the ground that the bill already adequately covers the circumstances that can and cannot be referred to the tribunals. In addition, amendment 53 already addresses any inconsistency in the bill with regard to notification of rights of referral. I ask Adam Ingram not to move amendment 90.
I move amendment 32.
With amendment 90 I want to ensure that everyone who has the right to appeal to the tribunal after a legitimate request is refused is provided with the relevant information as to their rights to do so. I acknowledge that, by introducing amendment 53, the minister has responded to the natural justice arguments that Fiona Hyslop raised at stage 2, but in doing so he has limited the scope for referral to requesting the establishment or review of a CSP. We want to expand the scope for referrals to tribunals beyond those narrow parameters and I have lodged amendments to that effect that Parliament has yet to consider. Amendment 90 would not pre-empt that debate, but, by contrast, amendment 53 is too restrictive.
Amendment 32 agreed to.
After section 9
Amendment 33 not moved.
Section 10—Duties to seek and take account of views, advice and information
Amendments 34 and 35 moved—[Euan Robson]—and agreed to.
Group 8 is on the duties that arise when a child or young person nears completion of school education. Amendment 68, in the name of Elaine Murray, is grouped with amendments 76, 38, 77 and 92.
Amendment 68 may seem a rather strange little amendment because it would simply change wording from the present tense to the present perfect tense. However, I believe that it has caused a fair stir among the draftspersons because it is unusual for wording to be in that tense. I lodged amendment 68 because concerns have been continually expressed about the way in which arrangements will be made for transition from school. The amendment would make it clear that the process is to be completed 12 months before the child leaves rather than commence at that point. As written, the duty could imply that consideration of the information may take place during the 12 months before the child leaves rather than before that period. I believe that the Executive's intention is that that should not happen, but changing the tense might make the intention a bit clearer. I introduced a similar amendment at stage 2, but I did not press it because the Executive wanted to consider alternatives.
Amendment 76, in the name of Rosemary Byrne, probably has the same intention, but it might require education authorities to ensure that children receive adequate support after leaving school. That is not really within the competence of education authorities; it will be an obligation on the organisations to which young people go after leaving school. The Executive's amendment 38 is intended to have the same effect as my amendment would have, but I am not convinced that it will do so. I wait to hear from the minister how amendment 38 will achieve the same effect as amendment 68.
Amendment 77 would require education authorities to provide information to the relevant agencies 12 months before a child transfers from school. However, that could be simultaneous with the completion of the examination of the arrangements that are needed, which might be somewhat impractical.
I move amendment 68.
Amendments 77 and 92 aim to tighten up anomalies in the bill. Information on young people who are leaving school should be exchanged between the agencies that support the young person. That should be done a minimum of 12 months, not six months, prior to the transition from school. However, although section 10(5)(a) states that education authorities must request information at least 12 months prior to the transition, section 11(1)(a) states that they must provide information to other agencies at least six months prior to that date. We should tidy that up and make the period 12 months in both cases.
Amendment 76 relates to the duties to seek and take account of advice and information. Alongside amendments 77 and 92, amendment 76 has been lodged to ensure that everything possible is done to make the transition from school to college, training or other placements as smooth as possible. Amendment 76 would make section 10 read "in ensuring that adequate support is co-ordinated or provided for the child or young person during the period before the child or young person ceases to receive school education", rather than
"in considering the adequacy of the additional support provided for the child or young person during the period before the child or young person ceases to receive school education."
The change in wording would strengthen the commitment to ensuring ease of transition. The present system uses formal needs assessments and good practice exists. Amendment 76 would ensure that that good practice continues. We do not want to diminish it. I ask members to support amendments 76, 77 and 92.
In response to the possibility of misunderstandings about timescales on post-school transition, I undertook to consider the introduction of an amendment to clarify the situation. Amendment 38 will change the wording of section 10(6) from "support provided" to "support to be provided". The amendment is intended to make it clear that, while education authorities must have obtained information and views and taken account of them before they reach the point 12 months prior to the child or young person's expected leaving date, that information is to be used to inform the adequacy of the provision that is to be made for the period leading up to the leaving date. I reiterate that that has always been the policy intention and I regret that it was not clear from the original wording.
I resist amendment 68 on the ground that it is unnecessary in the light of amendment 38. Amendment 68 is also inconsistent with drafting elsewhere in the bill and in other legislation. Elaine Murray is correct that there was considerable debate about the matter with the parliamentary draftsmen. Section 11(1) might cause confusion if the present perfect tense were used in section 10(5). Amendment 68 might be interpreted as a deliberate move to distinguish section 10(5) from others, which would be unfortunate. Amendment 38 should help to give a clearer sense that action must have been taken 12 months before the leaving date. Elaine Murray and I had recourse to English grammar texts in discussing the issue, but I hope that she agrees that amendment 38 clarifies matters sufficiently and that she will withdraw amendment 68.
I resist amendment 76 because it is unnecessary. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that education authorities co-ordinate and provide adequate support during the 12-month period before the young person leaves school. However, the bill already places a duty on education authorities to identify and support the additional support needs of all children and young people for whom they are responsible. That duty applies throughout a child or young person's school career. If a young person needs additional support that requires an element of co-ordination, that will be done through the young person's CSP or individualised educational programme. I ask Rosemary Byrne not to move amendment 76.
I resist amendment 77 on the same grounds on which I resisted a similar amendment at stage 2. Amendment 77 proposes that information should be passed to post-school support agencies no later than 12 months before the school leaving date. However, such a timescale would not achieve the aim of providing information. The policy intention behind the duty on education authorities to pass information to agencies that provide post-school provision is to alert those agencies to the young person's imminent leaving date. Amendment 77 would oblige education authorities to pass on information that may be premature or no longer relevant by the time the young person leaves school. Amendment 92 is consequential on amendment 77 and I resist it accordingly. I ask Rosemary Byrne not to move amendments 77 and 92.
In view of the time, I will invite Dr Elaine Murray to wind up on the group this afternoon and to say at that stage whether she intends to press amendment 68. We will then decide on the other amendments in the group.