Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1039, in the name of Peter Peacock, that the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill be passed, and one amendment to that motion.
I am conscious that we have had a long day and I will try to keep my remarks as tight as I can.
Today marks the culmination of an extensive process of consultation and parliamentary debate, which has developed a bill that will introduce a new and modern system to support all children—I stress, all children—who need additional support for learning, to allow them to benefit fully from their education.
The bill has certainly generated a lot of interest and has inspired a good deal of debate from all corners of Scottish society, which shows the strength of feeling that exists on the subject and the desire to ensure that Scotland is as inclusive as possible, which can only be a good thing. It is not long ago that special educational needs or disabilities of any kind were barely discussed, or were discussed in pejorative terms, setting low expectations for the groups of young people concerned.
The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 was in its time a landmark piece of legislation that brought about significant change. We should not underestimate the changes that this bill will bring about. The only reason for the bill is to improve children's lives and make a difference to more children than ever before. It is not about change for the sake of change; it is about getting the improvement that we want and about doing more for our young people, in the recognition that what we currently do for them is simply not enough. Parliament has called for change to what has become an outdated system, which we have debated over the past weeks and months, culminating in today's debate.
The principles in the bill put children right at the centre of all that we do and think about. The fundamental provision is the new duty—I stress, duty—on education authorities to assess and address the needs of every child with barriers to learning, irrespective of their having a statutory learning plan. That is a new duty on local authorities that gives all our children new rights that have never been enjoyed before. The bill also places new duties on other agencies, such as health and social work services, to assist the education service. It removes the outdated and overly bureaucratic record-of-needs process. It provides for mediation services and dispute resolution arrangements to help resolve disputes between parents, the school and the education authority. It introduces the new co-ordinated support plan to better co-ordinate the multi-agency input required to support those children and young people with the most extensive needs and it creates a new additional support needs tribunal to hear appeals relating to co-ordinated support plans. The bill strikes a good balance between seeking to ensure that children with the most extensive needs are protected, while introducing a new system for the wider school population.
I am grateful to everyone for all the work that they have done leading up to the bill's introduction to Parliament and during its passage through the Parliament and the Education Committee. Many people contributed to that process. A wide range of individuals and organisations have engaged with us on the bill, including voluntary sector organisations and professional agencies, and I am grateful to them for being so willing to share their many and varied opinions and experience. I place on record my thanks to everyone for their participation in the process.
I thank also the Education Committee members and officials for their hard work in giving the principles of the bill detailed consideration and for producing a balanced and thorough stage 1 report. The committee's dedication to the task has been clearly demonstrated throughout the process. I commend the way that the committee and the Executive have worked together throughout the process in a spirit of openness and co-operation to secure the best possible options for our children and young people. I also thank the members of the other committees that took time to consider the bill and contribute to the process. Last, but by no means least, I thank Euan Robson for his efforts in dealing with the detail of the bill, and the officials in the Executive's bill team for their hard work in preparing the bill and the accompanying material. Between the bill team, and the committee and its officials, a great deal has been done to ensure that views were taken on board wherever possible, many of which are reflected in the bill as it stands.
Throughout the development of the bill, I have been aware of members' differing opinions and, in some cases, their concerns that the proposals did not go far enough. I have always said that we will listen to and consider careful representations and good arguments for the improvement of the bill. As a result, we have lodged several amendments and have supported others that have strengthened the bill. For example, provisions relating to advocacy are now included in the bill, as are strengthening provisions for the under-threes. The bill provides for formal consultation, for Parliament's input into the code of practice, and for the code of practice to be applied to other agencies as well as to education authorities. Finally, the bill contains transitional arrangements to offer further protection to those who have a record of needs.
The bill aims to create a stronger, better system for supporting children's learning and their specific needs, and it will make a real difference to many young people in Scotland. I commend the bill to the Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I thank the clerks and the staff of the Scottish Parliament information centre for their assistance in handling the bill. I warmly congratulate Ken Macintosh on the success of his amendment 8A. Those with a knowledge of autism will be extremely grateful to him. I thank the ministers for their good humour and I thank Euan Robson, in particular, for his handling of the committee—even if his concessions were few and far between.
One such concession was the minister's response to Skill Scotland's amendment with regard to transition planning. Skill Scotland has written to me to say that it is content, for the time being, with the minister's assurance that the code of practice will specifically address good practice around transition planning, including the extension of planning time for those with more complex needs. However, I ask the minister to confirm that the code of practice will be formulated with the utmost transparency.
The amendment in my name has been signed by members of the Scottish National Party and the leader of the Scottish Green Party, Robin Harper. On 28 January, I stated:
"This subject needs to be addressed with humility by all concerned, because we are dealing with the most vulnerable in the community … There is a great deal to be said for weighing the merits of each case on the best interests and needs of the individual child."—[Official Report, 28 January 2004; c 5218.]
Paragraph 36 of the Education Committee's stage 1 report states:
"The Committee recognises that the legislation makes certain changes to existing rights, but the Committee is of the view that any changes to legal rights must not represent any lessening of the rights of any child to have their additional support needs met."
During the committee's debates, the issue was the subject of lengthy discussions, and Dyslexia Scotland was disappointed with the outcome—as were other charities—because many children in Scotland who have severe learning problems, such as dyslexia, may not require support from other agencies. In our view, such children should—at the very least—be entitled to a support plan; however, many of them will not be entitled to that under the bill. The same argument can be advanced on behalf of some children who suffer from autism. Indeed, the National Autistic Society is worried that some children with an autistic spectrum disorder may not be assessed correctly, as their needs are often hidden. The cross-party group on autistic spectrum disorder has also expressed considerable anxiety.
Many parents are rightly concerned because the record of needs for which many of them had to fight will no longer be recognised. They will have no comparable document on which to rely in the event of a dispute or proceedings before a tribunal. There is genuine fear among parents that some children with additional support needs could fall through the net. I do not think that the Executive has paid sufficient regard to the many thousands of parents who have obtained records of needs for their children, but whose children will not be eligible for co-ordinated support plans. I fear that the bill is trying to do too much too quickly and, in solving some problems, will create others. In the light of experience its terms may have to be revisited and changed. Only a very bold member of the Parliament could be confident that a code of practice will be sufficient.
In conclusion, I will not vote against the bill; however, we do not endorse the bill, as we still have substantial reservations, which are outlined in our amendment. If our worst fears turn out to be correct, we will return to the issue. It appears that the bill, in its entirety, is unlikely to stand the test of time.
I move amendment S2M-1039.1, to insert at end:
"but, in so doing, expresses concern that the Scottish Executive did not act fully upon the recommendations of the Education Committee's 2nd Report 2004 (Session 2), Stage 1 Report on Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill, and is concerned that a significant number of parents who formerly had records of needs for their child will no longer have comparable legal rights to those parents whose children will qualify for a Co-ordinated Support Plan."
I, too, put on record my thanks for the hard work of all my colleagues on the committee and the clerks. I also recognise the work of the Executive bill team and the minister.
During the process, I think that the minister persuaded the committee and the Parliament in some areas and that we persuaded him in a number of areas. The bill has had a thorough going over—I am not sure whether the minister feels that he has also had a thorough going over. I think that I recognised in some of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's comments a backhanded compliment, perhaps followed up by a sucker punch from his experience. However, we should recognise what has happened.
I have a heavy heart in rising to speak because I support Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's amendment. The bill is a difficult bill—we all recognised that it would be—but there has been a continuous debate about how fairness and justice for all can be balanced against rationing resources and targeting for a few. That has been a contention throughout the debate on the bill. There has been a debate about balancing the rights of parents and children against the responsibilities and resources of local authorities. The concern is whether we have managed to reach the right balance between the rights of parents and the rights of authorities.
I acknowledge that concessions have been made as the bill has progressed. Section 2A and section 24A and the support and advocacy in the bill are testament to that. There is some recognition of the need to protect children who currently have a record of needs, but there is a danger that they will not have rights that are comparable to the rights of those who have the new CSP. That cuts to the heart of the matter.
There has been amelioration of some factors, which I welcome and am pleased about. Much attention has also been given to the early-years debate and, in particular, to the importance of recognising special needs and additional support for learning at an early stage. I ask the minister to reflect that, as part of this national bill, we will yet again put more duties and responsibilities on nursery nurses in order to deliver some of the early provision. [Interruption.]
Order. There will be no applauding in the galleries, thank you.
I recognise that the Executive has referred to three and four-year-olds, but I am disappointed that the amendment relating to two-year-olds was not accepted. An opportunity has been missed. There could have been a universal system. I think that we want a universal system and that the ministers would like such a system, but we are going too slowly for that. We will revisit the legislation—certainly in dealing with a code of practice—but I suspect that, later on, we will need to ensure that we secure rights for all children to ensure that all children's support needs are met in future.
Perhaps we have arrived at this debate a little punch drunk and battered by the sheer length of the stage 3 proceedings. It seems odd to recollect that there was a time when I had never heard of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill. However, I am glad that I have dealt with it, as the experience has been interesting. The bill is the first to go through the Education Committee during my convenership and it has been interesting to follow it through.
I thank the clerks and staff—Martin Verity and his colleagues. In particular, I thank Irene Fleming, who is about to leave the education clerk sector for another posting in the Parliament. They have all been absolutely brilliant during the exercise. I also thank the ministers. We do so formally, but I do so genuinely on this occasion because they have bent over backwards to be careful and considerate in their approach to the bill. When they assumed office as the new ministers, they had a fresh look at the matter, reconsidered it and came back with a fresh version of the bill. Leaving aside amendments, one seventh of the bill's sections are marked with an "A", which indicates that they were amended at the committee stage. Therefore, the Opposition leaders—Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Fiona Hyslop—have been a little less than gracious in accepting the extent to which the Executive has taken issues on board.
The bill is difficult and a balance has had to be struck between, on the one hand, the desire for a universal system and, on the other hand, the desire for specific targeted and focused attention on the particular needs of certain categories of children. I think that the bill has got the balance broadly right. There can always be nuances and I do not doubt that we can all take a slightly different view of certain bits of the bill, but all the pressures on it should be taken into account. To be honest, I am not entirely convinced that Fiona Hyslop in particular has steered the same course throughout the bill. A number of slightly different arguments have been pursued and it was notable that the committee managed to achieve a unanimous stage 1 recommendation, which has largely been met by what has happened since.
The tribunals were one of the most contentious issues, but the discussions that I had with Children in Scotland and other organisations led me to believe that they will be broadly content with the eventual outcome.
This is a good bill, which will lead to significant improvements for a vulnerable section of the population. Apart from thanking the committee, the ministers and the staff, it is important to thank the children, the parents and the various voluntary organisations that gave their input to the committee.
I finish by thanking the committee. We had a good Education Committee on the bill, and all its members have, without regard to party considerations, taken their best steps to put forward both their views and the views that were presented to them. They debated the matter in a reasonable and sensible fashion, and it has been a privilege to be the convener of the committee. It is a little unfortunate that we have a division of opinion at the end, as I do not think that it is justified by the nature of the debate. I hope that the Parliament will unanimously pass the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill at the end of the day.
Due to time constraints, I will not be able to call all members who have requested to speak. We will stick to tight three-minute speeches.
I support the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill and I would like to put on the record my thanks to the committee and the bill team for what is an extremely complex bill. I also thank the many people who have participated in some way and made their views known.
I do not recognise the extremely uncharitable comments that Mr Douglas-Hamilton made about the ministers who have been involved with the bill. I would like to put on the record my thanks to those ministers for their ability to listen and to take action after listening. On this bill, they proved themselves to be listening ministers.
I welcome the bill as someone who has worked for more than 20 years with children with additional support needs, and as the parent of a daughter who had a record of needs when she was at school. There is widespread acceptance that although the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 was a landmark act in its time, as the minister said, it has become inadequate. There are huge discrepancies in how the legislation has been implemented throughout Scotland. The 1980 definition excluded many children and young people from support—notably children with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties—but the bill is inclusive.
The new term "additional support needs" is important because such needs can arise from any factor that causes a barrier to learning. As a parent, I welcome the new rights for parents that are in the bill, including the right for parents to ask the education authority to assess their child, the right to access mediation and dispute resolution, and the right to appeal to the new, family-friendly tribunals. Those rights also apply to young people aged 16 and 17.
I welcome the new duties on education authorities and others, such as health authorities, because we have failed young people in that area in the past. Under the bill's provisions, agencies must comply with requests from the local authority, and that responsibility must lie with the education authority.
In conclusion, the bill is a major step forward for children and young people with additional support needs and their parents. It is just over 20 years since legislation described some young people as ineducable. Today, we are taking a major step forward in removing barriers to learning and including all pupils in our education system. I ask members to support the bill.
In my experience, the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill compares in its degree of difficulty only to the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill, which we passed in the previous session of Parliament. With the latter bill, we at least had the benefit of a comprehensive report by the Millan committee as a benchmark.
The SNP has approached the bill in a constructive manner, although we make no secret of the fact that we would have preferred the Executive to strengthen the universal system for learning support in our schools, rather than to replace a separate, special system to meet the needs of a vulnerable group of children with another special system. We take the view that, in the real world, systems for everyone tend to have higher standards than systems for sub-groups of the population. Of course, universal systems also limit the scope for stigmatisation.
We support the Executive's intention to broaden the coverage of the school population to which the bill will apply so that it will include, for example, children with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. However, we are concerned that children with complex and multiple needs who do not require services outwith the education authority will not be eligible for a CSP, which will both confer legal rights and, crucially, provide access to the new tribunals.
We are disappointed that the Parliament today closed off the opportunities to extend access to the tribunals. That is why we will vote for the amendment in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. We are very much in favour of moving towards a tribunal system to which everyone has access. That would ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes that were made under the old record-of-needs system. Access to a tribunal should not be dependent on possession of a CSP; still less should a CSP be sought after as a passport to services.
Given the adversarial nature of the current system, members must recognise the legacy of confrontation and suspicion that has too often marred the relationship between parents and education authorities in their pursuit of their duty to care. We must do all that we can to ensure that the new system does not suffer the same fate.
I take this opportunity to thank the committee and its clerks for their hard work. The clerks have been very supportive in what has been my first experience of the passage of a bill. I thank them for that.
Every child should have his or her additional support needs met—that is the crux of the matter. Peter Peacock wants to make a real improvement, but the introduction of a two-tier system will not be inclusive. Instead, it will provide a deficit model for the children who will have a CSP, who will be labelled as being different from other children. That flies in the face of all the progress that has been made over the years in ensuring that special educational needs are met appropriately.
The bill will not remove any barriers; it will place more in the way. We should have taken the road of providing a universal system for additional support and for the tribunals. There is absolutely no doubt about that. I have a lot of sympathy with Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's amendment, which I will support because I feel that we have been let down badly in the bill. Not all children who have the most extensive needs will be protected by the bill. Children who have autistic spectrum disorders or dyslexia, and many other young people, will not be protected and their parents will have a battle on their hands. As I said earlier, we will have an adversarial situation.
The way in which the votes on the amendments have gone today is a true reflection of what happened in the committee. A lot of effort has been made to try to reach consensus, but many members are unhappy with the bill. Some of them will still vote for its implementation, but the Scottish Socialist Party will vote against it. We believe that the bill will simply provide a minefield for parents. That will be a real issue.
I welcome the fact that we have reached the final stage of the bill. The bill has been a long time in gestation, not only in the committee but in the consultation periods before that, so I hope that it will succeed in being passed without the qualification of the amendment.
I completely dissociate myself from Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's statement that ministers' concessions were few and far between; that is patently incorrect. Let us reflect on the fact that the bill will, for the first time, place a duty on local authorities to provide for all children who require additional support to reach their full potential. Thus, no child should fall through any net. The bill does not provide a two-tier system, but one that will provide additional support for all children who have additional support needs.
I am amazed that the Scottish Socialist Party will vote against the bill and therefore in favour of the record-of-needs system, which has been so discredited. These days, that system results in postcode provision for the most vulnerable children. The bill recognises that the system of support is most likely to break down where services are provided by more than one agency. For that reason, it will place on education authorities a duty to ensure that co-ordinated services are provided for vulnerable children. The bill is about protection and recognising where things go wrong. It is not about labelling and stigmatisation.
The bill will also provide additional reassurances to parents of children who have records of needs but will not be eligible for CSPs. Those children will receive a service that is at least as good as the service that they received previously. There will be no diminution of service.
The guidance on the code of practice will be essential. I welcome the fact that there will be consultation with a large number of stakeholders. That consultation will involve not just Parliament, but the people who really matter: the parents of the youngsters.
I am pleased to support the bill and to reject the amendment.
Noted as I am for my consensual approach, I am sorry to disappoint members by saying that it will not be reflected in this speech.
Apparently, many children will receive additional support under the bill. I use the word "apparently" intentionally, because the record of local authorities on the matter is patchy. Sometimes their provision is generous and impressive, but sometimes it is parsimonious and begrudging. There is nothing in the bill that will necessarily change that.
I pay tribute to members who have lodged successful amendments, but despite those amendments and attempted amendments from all parties we know that—for some—"additional support" is no more than Government doublespeak. Many will lose the rights that they could otherwise have expected to enjoy. That is why we have difficulty in endorsing the bill unequivocally and why we have lodged a reasoned amendment.
I pay tribute to Ken Macintosh for his perseverance, which showed us that it is possible to defeat the Executive on amendments to a bill. The most disappointing part of today's debate was Robert Brown's failure to resist amendment 47. How many of us are able to claim a successful amendment to a bill against Government whipping in committee? Robert Brown can claim that. However, today he gave in to pressure from the Executive—the same Executive that he was so willing yesterday to dig out of a hole on Holyrood. I believe that if he had resisted the Executive he would have had enough support to win the day.
The bill was well intentioned and has many good points, but it has too many flaws to have our overwhelming endorsement. I support the amendment.
In the customary manner, I take this opportunity to extend my thanks to all those who have contributed to the development and preparation of the bill. I am grateful to the bill team, not only for the amount of work that they have put in, but for tirelessly supporting Peter Peacock and me throughout the process.
We need to consider the length of time between the deadline for lodging of amendments and consideration of amendments in committee and the chamber. When bills are as complex as this one, it is important that there be enough time for proper consideration of amendments. I remember one occasion on which my officials had to leave Victoria Quay at 2.30 on the morning of a committee meeting. That is not acceptable and we should change the process. The situation is the same for members, who have but a short time to consider amendments.
I thank the Education Committee for its balanced, constructive and thorough approach and input to the bill and I thank the committee's officials for all their hard work. Peter Peacock and I thank all the organisations and individuals that have helped to shape the bill.
I was a little disappointed by Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's remarks. To borrow the terminology of the bill, I consider them to be barely adequate, whereas I consider that the concessions that I granted were indeed adequate. I assure the member that the process for drawing up the code of practice will be transparent. I hoped and thought that I had got that message across firmly at stage 2.
I do not think that some members have understood fully the importance of section 2A of the bill. We devoted a great deal of time and attention to that and to the issues that were raised concerning the rights of all those who will not have a co-ordinated support plan. I think and hope that in practice section 2A will prove to be the landmark amendment to this bill and that it will be effective in securing the rights of those who do not have a CSP.
We are committed to implementing the bill in full. However, that will take time; the bill's main provisions are unlikely to be commenced before autumn 2005. We have never said that the legislation would be the final word on this important area; indeed, we have made it very clear that we are prepared to keep a constant watch on the matter not only during the implementation process, but throughout the act's lifetime. I look forward to a day when tribunals and advocacy are not necessary because the system is working so well.
In implementing the bill, we will work with key stakeholders across Scotland to ensure that we achieve its aims and that the new system delivers. A small advisory group including representatives from a range of interests—parents, professionals from education, health and social work, career services and training providers—has already been set up and that is just the start. As I said, we will make the process of drawing up the code of practice transparent.
Furthermore, as Peter Peacock made clear during the stage 1 debate on 28 January, considerable funding has been set aside for implementation. I reiterate that £14 million will be made available in 2005-06 to support the bill's implementation and, in the financial year that has just begun, £12 million will be available to help prepare for that implementation. It is clear that we have dedicated considerable resources to the bill's smooth and practical implementation.
I acknowledge, however, that a great deal more has to be done and I am pleased to say that that work is in train. The bill gives us an opportunity to develop a new system that will build on existing good practice and which will make a real difference to the lives of many children and their families throughout Scotland. It is an opportunity that should not be missed and I am sure that that will not happen. I thoroughly recommend that Parliament agree that the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill be passed.