Special Educational Needs (Borders)
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S1M-2098, in the name of Christine Grahame, on Borders children with special educational needs.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern that despite parental opposition Scottish Borders Council at its meeting on 1 August 2001 authorised, by a majority vote, further cuts of £1,579,255 to its education budget; notes that £200,000 was previously cut from the budget for the provision of special education auxiliaries; is concerned that part of these further cuts will impact on the provision of transport for children with special needs and that the intention to vire £525,000 from the Excellence Fund budget to the National Grid for Learning budget will impact directly on special education needs provision by raiding the budget for classroom assistants, early intervention and learning support; believes that this matter is causing undue distress and uncertainty to parents of children with special educational needs; further notes the recommendations in the 3rd Report 2001 by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, Report on Inquiry into Special Educational Needs, in particular, recommendation 1 on "Maximising the participation of all children in mainstream schools", and therefore believes that the Scottish Executive should ensure that the provision of education for Borders children with special needs is not sacrificed to rescue the Borders administration from financial mismanagement and, if necessary, should provide additional, ring-fenced funding on appropriate terms in order to secure a fair and inclusive education for these vulnerable children.
I welcome all those who have managed to travel from the Scottish Borders today for this debate. [Applause.] For those who could not manage to come to the Parliament—and there are many, especially parents and carers of children with special educational needs—the hope is that they can follow the debate at home on the webcast.
The debate is but another step in a continuing campaign to reverse the cuts approved by the Liberal Democrat-Independent coalition of Scottish Borders Council at its meeting on 1 August. It is therefore interesting to see that Euan Robson will reply to the debate.
Today, Borderers have presented a petition with 10,000 signatures to the Parliament's Public Petitions Committee, asking the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to undertake an inquiry into the cuts and their causes. In particular, I praise Augusta Greenlees who was co-ordinator of the petition, which contains signatures from communities all over the Borders. For example, there are 423 signatures from Coldstream; 591 from Duns; 1,975 from Galashiels; and 290 from Walkerburn. All the signatories are united in their determination to reverse the cuts. I know the Public Petitions Committee and believe that this petition will be given a sympathetic hearing en route to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. The petitioners hope that their 10,000 signatures will speak loud and clear to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee so that when it visits the Borders, parents and others can have their say to committee members in person.
Last Saturday, thousands of Borderers, local politicians—including me—trade unionists, teachers, parents, children, cleaners, auxiliaries and others marched in stair-rod rain through Galashiels to protest against the cuts. We marched behind the banner of the Educational Institute of Scotland and the tall figure of Jock Houston, who is the secretary of the institute and the head of Hawick High School.
As for the Association of School Boards, all 17 school boards in the Borders had a unanimous vote of no confidence in the director of education, the director of finance—who is currently acting chief executive of Scottish Borders Council—and the entire Liberal Democrat-Independent administration. Furthermore, the Borders Headteachers Association condemns the budget cuts.
Why such people power? The impact to date of the as yet unexplained overspend of £3.9 million and the subsequent £2.5 million in cuts has resulted in job losses among cleaners and dinner ladies and cuts in auxiliary and speech therapist hours. Children at Broomlands Primary School in Kelso have even been fighting to prevent the partial sale of their playground.
I want to focus on some telling individual examples of how the cuts are impacting children with special educational needs. Jared Johnstone is eight years old; he is blind and does not speak. He has been attending the Royal Blind School in Edinburgh since he was four, travelling by taxi all the way from Kelso with an escort. He used to be picked up at 7.45 am and was at his school, on time, by 9 o'clock. He was a happy child.
In August, all that changed as a result of the cuts to the education transport budget. We should note that the cuts were made to the transport budget, because Scottish Borders Council keeps claiming that it has not made cuts to the SEN budget—which might technically be true.
Jared Johnstone now leaves home at 7.25 am and travels by taxi to St Boswells, where he transfers to a minibus. The bus picks up other children en route to Edinburgh, which means that Jared reaches school at 9.30 am. In effect, he is late for school every day. The change has had a noticeable effect on him. His father, who is in the gallery today, says that, from being a child full of life and energy, Jared comes home tired and moody. He is suffering because of the incompetence of others and, as any parent or non-parent would understand, his family are desperately concerned and anxious.
Victoria Nichol is six and has cerebral palsy—I asked a question about her at question time this afternoon. Her parents want her to attend her local primary school at Halyrude in Peebles, where she could mix with her friends and older sister, as she does at the local girl guides. She is currently travelling four days a week with her mother or grandmother to the Craighalbert Centre in Cumbernauld with a half day at her Peebles school, where she wants to be permanently. Her parents are quite prepared for her attendance at the local school to be phased in. What has the local authority done? It has kicked the parents' application into touch by sending it to the Scottish ministers and into a process that will take almost a year to resolve. Like many other parents, Victoria's father is in the gallery tonight.
There are other examples. Donna Allen's son, who is five and a half, currently attends a school that is part of the early intervention programme. That programme also is losing out, because of the virement of £525,000 from the excellence fund. Early intervention is one of the categories in the excellence fund. Donna Allen is seriously concerned that her son, who is being assessed for Asperger's syndrome, will not receive support.
The once proposed autism unit is now—in local authority-speak—postponed, yet the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs has agreed the virement because the council has assured him that it will not impact on children with special educational needs. Scottish Borders Council may live to regret that assurance, as there are autistic children who are losing out now because of cuts from the excellence fund. The list goes on.
The audit report will be published soon. I hope that it will be robust and tell us the why, the who and the where of how the money was spent, but that is only part of what is required. The purpose of this debate is to call on the minister and his Cabinet colleagues—I have previously written to both the Minister for Finance and Local Government and the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs—particularly in light of the £718 million underspend in the Scottish budget, to redress the impact of the cuts by providing a financial rescue package, on appropriate terms and ring-fenced, so that these and other children do not pay for the failures of others.
I refer the minister to the third report in 2001 of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, on special educational needs. Recommendation 1 of that report is:
"Maximising the participation of all children in mainstream schools".
Section 15 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, which will come into force in due course, contains a
"requirement that children be educated in mainstream schools".
The act states that, where there are exceptions to that,
"it shall be presumed that those circumstances arise only exceptionally."
I trust that the mismanagement of a local authority does not constitute an exception. There is a presumption for mainstreaming.
The minister has a responsibility for these children over and above the council's responsibility. In the spirit of that legislation and in conformity with the report of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, Jack McConnell—and I regret that he is not here to hear this—should ensure that the word "mainstreaming" is given its worth, by proper funding so that Jared and Victoria and all the other Jareds and Victorias, and all those concerned parents and carers, can know that it is not the cost of their children that counts, but their value.
I give Christine Grahame my whole-hearted support for the case that she has made today. It is clear that Scottish Borders Council has grievously mismanaged its education budget over the past two years and that services have been cut severely. Christine Grahame has demonstrated that it is through the back door of transport cuts rather than through direct education cuts that the impact on special educational needs pupils has been felt most severely.
All members who represent the South of Scotland and those whose constituencies are there have been bombarded with complaints and representations on this issue. We all feel very strongly that Scottish Borders Council has let down its electorate, its local parents and its pupils. I therefore commend Christine Grahame for raising this issue and for working with constituents. I appreciate that many people who are in the public gallery will be pleased to have this matter debated today. Had the diligence that she has shown in pursuit of this cause been shown by members of the council's education committee over the years, including the SNP councillors, the difficulty might have been averted. Councillors are entitled to ask for financial information and it is their responsibility to manage it on a meeting-by-meeting basis—that is what they are paid for.
I also congratulate the local newspaper, the Southern Reporter, on its campaign and commend the parents for their tenacity. However, there is an item in the motion and in the petition that is problematic for the Parliament. When I saw the petition, I assumed that it was a petition to Scottish Borders Council and I would happily have signed it myself. It is up to the Public Petitions Committee to decide whether a petition is admissible, but the guidance that is issued to petitioners and outlines what is competent suggests to me that it is extremely unlikely that this petition will be accepted. It is not the role of the Scottish Parliament to second guess the judgments and decisions of local authorities.
To the best of my knowledge, the wording is admissible. Before it was drafted, I confirmed the wording on behalf of the petitioners with the Public Petitions Committee clerk and I have his assurance that it is in an admissible form.
That remains to be seen. I hope that Christine Grahame is right.
The Education, Culture and Sport Committee has already agreed to go and study the situation in the Borders. That is entirely correct and it has been decided without reference to the petitioners. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee is to be commended for its decision.
It is not within the remit of the Scottish Parliament to investigate the conduct of local councils; that is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. The Executive is accountable to us, and councils in discharge of their statutory duties are accountable to the Executive. That is the line of responsibility. I understand that the Executive has already set in motion the process of external audit, which is entirely correct, and the process of an educational inspection, which is what it is entitled and obliged to do. As far as I can tell, what the Executive can do is being done and what the Parliament can do is being done. I am delighted to support that position.
I expect the public to get answers. I expect all the information to come out. I expect those who have made the mistakes and those who have failed to discharge their responsibilities to be held to account. The councillors responsible and, if it is appropriate, the senior officers should be made to pay—that is not in dispute. No harm at all can come of Scottish Borders Council's leadership getting a good going over for the mismanagement of the budget. It has been getting that all year and more is coming. I expect that, at the next local elections, some councillors may pay the price for what has happened. All those things are entirely appropriate because we are dealing with local matters.
All of us in this chamber know why it is unreasonable to expect the Scottish Executive simply to stump up the cash. The situation is the responsibility of the council and, if the Scottish Executive were to bail out councils willy-nilly, it would teach local authorities a baleful lesson.
Will the member give way?
I do not think I have time.
While I agree that Christine Grahame has done an excellent job, on which I congratulate her, of voicing the concerns of constituents, I stress that I am concerned that the Scottish Parliament will be brought into disrepute if expectations are aroused about what we can or should properly do. Some of the things that have been suggested today are not appropriate. The answers to the problems that have been outlined lie in the decisions and actions of the council—that is where the wrongs will be righted, the remedies sought and those responsible properly punished. The Scottish Parliament has little direct role in that.
Before I call Mr Russell, I must say a gentle word to our visitors from the Borders. I do not want to be discourteous, but I must point out that applause from the public galleries is not allowed in this chamber.
As I was listening to Mr Tosh, for whom I have a great deal of respect, I heard a comment from a man who is sitting behind me and for whom I also have a great deal of respect: Alex Neil—although he will be surprised to hear me say that. In the middle of Murray Tosh's speech, Alex Neil said, "What about the weans?" That is the only possible answer to what Murray Tosh has just said.
What we have heard is an extraordinary abdication of responsibility. Although I respect Murray Tosh, what we heard from him was an abdication of a desire to care for those who are suffering. He provided no answer for those who come to us and ask for a solution. People who come to the Parliament in genuine distress have no use for technical answers.
Will the member give way?
In a moment.
There is a precedent for what Murray Tosh is talking about: the Education, Culture and Sport Committee inquiry into a process of school closure in Argyll. The process was halted by the council on the basis that its consultation process was inadequate. Before Murray Tosh responds to my points, I must say that I am astonished by his accusations about the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.
I heard from a Scottish Borders councillor last week who wanted to blame not the director of education and not the administration of the council, but the churches and the teachers' representatives because they sat on the education committee. The people to blame are those who ran the Scottish Borders Council budget and the councillors. We should blame them and not try to blame those who are blameless.
Murray Tosh may intervene.
Having sat on a council and knowing what information is given to councillors and what my responsibilities were, I can assure Mike Russell that he is utterly wrong.
On the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's intervention in Argyll, I understand that the committee examined the procedures in that case. That is entirely appropriate. The committee can examine the procedures in the Borders, but the fairest way to help those who are in the gallery is to tell them what the truth is, who is responsible and how they might get redress. Telling them anything other than that is to mislead them.
That is an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin comment. The reality is that a great deal of damage and suffering has been caused. The Executive can take a variety of measures. Let us talk about that for a moment. It could use some of the vast underspend that exists to help real people—the real people who are in the public gallery.
The Executive could also take the example that Comhairle nan Eilean Siar set when it had a disaster lending money to the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. In that situation, the council was given a special borrowing power because the effect of the loss of the £27 million it lost would have been so grievous as to decimate the education service. Mr Peacock will remember that. I believe that he was in the Highlands at the time. He was not in the Western Isles. I freely acknowledge that he was completely blameless in that matter. He was not in the Labour party, as Mr Ingram points out. I will return briefly to the core of the question.
I want the minister to respond to two points. The minister is brave to close the debate, particularly as he is a Liberal Democrat minister. I admire him for it.
First, how did the situation happen? I have worked with our councillors. I pay strong tribute to Christine Grahame, whose work on the situation has been outstanding and who is standing up for people in a way from which Murray Tosh should learn. There has been no explanation. There has been no acknowledgement of responsibility. There has been no apology. That is completely unacceptable. Who is responsible and will they put their hand up, please? Somebody has to find out who is responsible. What is happening at the moment is a disgrace to local government.
Secondly, and even worse, the weakest—the poorest of the poor in society—those who are really suffering are being made to suffer more. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee produced a report on special educational needs that assumed that the bad days in that sector were over. We were trying to show the rest of Scotland that there is a lot to be done and that we were overwhelmingly impressed by the work that is being done in every part of Scotland by people who really care. We could not have imagined that within weeks of the report being issued, the first option of a council would be to cut services for those who need them most. That is a disgrace. No member should rest until that wrong has been redressed.
As members know, I taught in the Borders for almost 30 years. I continue to be a member of the EIS and I had every right to walk behind its banner on the march the other day. The background to the debate and the effects of the cuts to Scottish Borders Council's education budget have a real resonance for me because I know what it is like to teach with restricted resources. I recall from a long time ago how demoralising it can be to work in classrooms that are dusty, grubby and sometimes worse.
As an MSP, it is a distressing and new experience to have former pupils come to me now as young mothers with children who have special educational needs telling me how they fear that the council's provision for special education, and therefore for their children, will be cut. Similarly, constituents have written to me or come to surgeries to tell me of cases in which auxiliary support for the youngsters has been cut by some hours or will now not be put in place.
Council claims that SEN budgets have not been reduced in money terms and may even have been increased simply do not ring true in the face of such reductions. The truth is that the budgets were inadequate in the first place. Although the figures may not have been cut, they are not adequate to fund the provision that was needed last year. The cuts are real. To pretend otherwise is sophistry.
Similarly, we hear—as in Christine Grahame's example—of transport arrangements that fail to recognise the complex needs of individual children. When those personal cases are brought to our attention, it becomes clear that those are unique children with individual needs. We cannot and must not involve them in a simplistic numbers game. To various degrees, those youngsters are vulnerable, but each is infinitely valuable. We must recognise that in our provision for them. If, following Scottish Borders Council's disastrous failure in financial monitoring, cuts are needed—unfortunately, I believe that cuts are needed—the cuts should certainly not fall on our most vulnerable children.
Will the member give way?
No, not just now.
From the beginning, I have made clear to council leaders and officials my serious concerns about the provision for children with special educational needs. As a member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, I am committed to the improvement of SEN provision, which is embodied in the recommendations that followed our inquiry.
I regret the council's decision to postpone improvements in its services for pupils with autistic spectrum disorder. I am anxious that any delay in improving that provision should be short. I understand that some debate may now take place about the precise nature of any provision, but it is important that the council recognises that autism is becoming more readily diagnosed. The need for extra resources will undoubtedly grow. The special needs of autistic children cannot be put aside.
I am similarly unhappy about the transfer of resources from the various budgets that are mentioned in the motion. As an old-fashioned English teacher, I am temperamentally inclined to prefer investment in people to investment in computers. I know that that is simplistic and that financial and contractual matters surrounded that decision, but I regret in particular the loss of finance for classroom assistants and early intervention.
It is ironic that, until the recent problem arose, I felt that Scottish Borders Council was moving forward positively in recognising and responding to the new statutory requirements and to other developments in special educational needs provision. As a recent briefing from Children in Scotland acknowledges, rural authorities have some significant problems in implementing all the latest proposals. Much good work is being done by teachers and advisers in the Borders. I am sad that a service that is staffed by hard-working and dedicated individuals is now facing difficulties when the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive are making genuine efforts to raise standards and expectations.
This is a transitional phase in our country's way of thinking about special educational needs. At this time, it is important that pupils and teachers get our full support. They need assistance in the classroom. Teachers need training opportunities. I should point out that many teachers are nervous about the new changes and the thrust towards mainstreaming. Proper SEN provision is difficult to budget for. The provision for individual pupils can sometimes cost up to £100,000. If two such pupils come into a local authority, the budget can go haywire without the local authority being at fault. We must recognise that.
There is a moral duty on all of us to offer such youngsters a caring and positive educational environment that will allow them to grow and develop their full potential. We must not allow the council's financial problems to get in the way of the long-term future of such vulnerable children. Once the auditors and HM Inspectorate of Education have made their reports—and after the Education, Culture and Sport Committee has been to the Borders to take evidence—Scottish Borders Council and the Scottish Executive should look at the implications for the funding of special educational needs.
I rise to support the motion.
Sometimes, issues arise that highlight other issues at the same time. At the moment, children living in England and Wales are protected by a duty on education authorities to prepare and implement accessibility strategies for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Such protection is not afforded to children in Scotland. That highlights the fact that if we had similar legislation in place now, those children would not be the first people to suffer hardship and discrimination because of the cuts that Scottish Borders Council feels it must make.
Section 15 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 creates a presumption of inclusion and places new duties on education authorities to provide school education for all children in a mainstream setting, unless particular circumstances apply. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 extends the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to cover education—schools and further and higher education. Further and higher education must ensure that auxiliary aids and services are provided or make physical alterations to buildings to avoid discrimination.
There is an additional point, which is germane to the member's argument. Mainstreaming is particularly effective when the parents positively support it. In the cases in question, parents are demanding mainstreaming. That makes all the legislation in the world almost irrelevant—it is the parents' demand for the best for their children that adds the voracity to the argument.
Indeed. At present, however, that requirement does not apply to schools. Instead, auxiliary aids or services should be provided under the Scottish special educational needs system. According to Government documentation, physical accessibility should be planned for systematically over time.
The 2001 act requires schools and local education authorities in England and Wales to draw up accessibility plans and strategies. No such requirement has been placed on schools and education authorities in Scotland, as the issue is devolved. No such legislation has yet been proposed in Scotland. I feel that there is no justification for the present differences in access legislation between schools and higher and further education. The debate has highlighted an issue that must be addressed as soon as possible.
The Education, Culture and Sport Committee has already publicly recognised the geographical inequities experienced—particularly in rural areas—by children with special educational needs and their families. I hope that the implementation of a planning duty will be the minimum step to improve basic standards of accessibility across Scotland. I was asked by Children in Scotland to make that point because of my responsibility as co-chair of the cross-party group on children. I hope that members feel that that point is important in the context of the debate.
The situation is serious. As I was educated at Parkside Primary School and Jedburgh Grammar School, I know the benefits of a good Borders education. I go back to Jedburgh regularly and am familiar with the real strength of feeling that exists in the Borders. Some of that feeling is based on personal experience; some is based on word of mouth; some is based on the very worthwhile reporting of the Southern Reporter.
The concerns are genuine, which is why I whole-heartedly support the entirely appropriate investigations that are taking place on behalf of the Scottish Executive—especially the independent financial inquiry by the Audit Commission and, as ministers indicated today, by HM Inspectorate of Education. It is also why I support the inquiry by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee into the current financial situation at Scottish Borders Council. I will go into that inquiry with an open mind; I will consider all the areas within our competency; I will consider all the information that is put to us; I will consult the council—members and officials; I will consult the teaching staff, ancillary staff and clerical staff, all of whom are affected; and I will listen to pupils and parents. I will then have an informed basis on which to make recommendations from the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to the Parliament.
During the inquiry, one question that I will ask Scottish Borders Council is why it decided to make all its savings from the education budget instead of spreading the savings across all the council's budgets. That is a valid question to which an answer is required.
Another question that I will be asking is what steps Scottish Borders Council is taking to address the genuine concerns of many individual cases—some of which we have heard about today and others that are known to some members. All members of the Parliament hear about individual cases of special educational needs children who are not getting the type of provision that their parents would like. All of us are required to make representations to our local authorities to ensure that those children are getting the level of support they need. Scottish Borders Council will have to be accountable for the actions it takes in each case.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I have only three minutes.
I am letting members' speeches run to about four minutes.
In that case I will take the intervention.
I am very pleased with the comments that Karen Gillon has made as convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee: it is important to bring in Scottish Borders Council officials and councillors and hold them to account. Will the committee also interview the relevant ministers? It seems a bit daft that two weeks ago an underspend of £718 million was announced, yet the tragic stories that we have heard about from Christine Grahame could be solved by a few pounds in relative terms. It seems incomprehensible that we have such an underspend and yet allow this to go on in the Borders.
We have already asked for evidence from the Scottish Executive and, if it is appropriate, we will invite ministers to come to the committee to give evidence. However, what I will not do is allow vulnerable children to be used in a game of politics between political parties. Other people—adults—have messed up the situation and the children deserve the best from us.
Unfortunately, I cannot support Christine Grahame's motion. I cannot accept that the Parliament should give Scottish Borders Council extra money for the issue; we would send a very inappropriate message to local authorities, all of which are faced with continuing and excessive demands on their budgets. If we give extra money to one authority, we may be storing up substantial problems for ourselves in the future. We would be giving a green light to authorities, telling them that if they mess up and overspend we will bail them out, regardless of the consequences to the Scottish block. That would be a dangerous precedent.
Scottish Borders Council must be investigated and the Scottish Parliament's Education, Culture and Sport Committee will do that. We will investigate thoroughly and bring back a report to the Parliament. It will be the Parliament that makes a decision, on the basis of that report, on how we move forward on the issue. In the meantime, I urge everyone in the Borders to get their heads together to ensure that these kids do not suffer any more. There are solutions out there. Let us find them and work with everyone to ensure that the kids do not suffer.
May I move a motion to extend the business?
Yes.
Motion moved,
That the meeting be extended by up to 10 minutes.—[Michael Russell.]
Motion agreed to.
Karen Gillon's last comments were a nonsense.
Will the member give way?
For goodness' sake, let me develop the point. It is nonsense to suggest that because we make a special case for what has happened in Scottish Borders Council, every other council will be lining up to overspend their education budgets. Karen Gillon said that she does not want vulnerable children to become pawns in a political game. The problem is that if we do not intervene, those vulnerable children will become victims. That is the question that must be addressed in relation to Christine Grahame's motion.
I have two points for Tommy Sheridan. First, how do we know that the Borders is a special case? We do not know why it got into its current situation. Secondly, that is just the kind of financial prudence that I would expect from the Scottish Socialist Party: to chuck good money after bad.
Karen Gillon asks how we know that the Borders is a special case and then says that I want to chuck good money after bad. Until she has carried out the investigation, she does not know whether it is good money going after bad. I know that we will have to intervene now to prevent people who have had absolutely no role in creating the problem becoming the victims of that problem. That is the point.
Murray Tosh and Karen Gillon share a philosophy here: the idea that the Scottish Parliament should not interfere. Generally speaking, there is absolutely no doubt that local government should be allowed to govern, but there are exceptions, and there are exceptions beyond local government. We have had debates here on the fishing industry. We have had debates on the tourism industry. We have had debates on the farming industry. Each and every time there were special circumstances, we agreed to intervene to help the industries. What we have before us—
I am sorry, but I have taken one intervention and I will not be able to take another. Mr Tosh would not take one of mine earlier.
We are looking for the same principle to be applied in this case. My worry about what Ian Jenkins said is where the cuts will be deflected. The children are already suffering. Ian Jenkins said instead of the children suffering, let us look for cuts elsewhere. The problem is that low-paid workers will suffer. It is the class auxiliaries and the dinner ladies—the people who can ill afford to suffer any longer—who will suffer because of the overspend.
Murray Tosh asked a rhetorical question about raising expectations. Surely the Scottish Parliament exists to try to put things right. That is what the Scottish Parliament is here for. When we have a role to play and the competency to do so—which we clearly do—we should say that we will make good the cuts and carry out the investigation. Let us have the investigation. Let us get those who are responsible for the overspend. Let us punish them in relation to their jobs and their futures because they have mismanaged the council—there is no doubt about that—but do not punish those who do not deserve to be punished. Unless we intervene, a vulnerable group in Scottish Borders Council's area will be abandoned, which is not what this Parliament should do.
There is not much I can add to what Christine Grahame, Michael Russell and Tommy Sheridan have said. Frankly, I find it absurd that the Labour and Conservative parties believe that the writ of the Parliament—the writ of Scottish democracy—stops at the door of every local authority, irrespective of their competence.
Will Mr Quinan give way?
No. We have heard quite enough from Mr Tosh for one day.
Borders region has suffered incredibly over a long time and even during the lifetime of the Parliament, due to the damaging effects of foot-and-mouth disease and, before that, the problems with Viasystems and other electronics companies. A sense is developing that the Parliament cares little for rural areas and for the Borders in particular. That has been communicated to me on a number of occasions and I am sure that it has been communicated to other members.
The fact is that we have an opportunity to show that the Parliament works for people. In addressing the subject of this debate, which clearly is incompetence, there is an opportunity to bind together the Borders community and the community of the country. If we operate on the basis suggested by Murray Tosh and Karen Gillon, the Parliament will simply talk about technical matters—as Mr Tosh did—and will not deal with the problems that have brought people to this place on this day.
If Mr Tosh wishes to turn round and say to his constituents that he will wait for the outcome of an inquiry—
There is no choice.
Mr Tosh says that there is no choice, but I say to him that he has abandoned the principles of democracy. If there is bad government, it should be dealt with. If bad government means that individuals are suffering, we should intervene—
I want to intervene.
We should intervene, as Wendy Alexander did yesterday, when she agreed to use some of the surplus to write off the debts of further education colleges that are badly run. If Mr Tosh is suggesting that we should at no time interfere when local government fails its electorate and fails to manage funds correctly—
Mr Quinan will recall that I said the line of responsibility for the proper discharge of local authority duties was to the Executive, and the Executive is charged with reporting on the matters that it is investigating. Will Mr Quinan confirm that the SNP supported the declaration to which all political parties in the Parliament subscribed that the Parliament was the equal of local government? Does he agree that the Parliament therefore has no right to go round sorting out local government, any more than local government has the right to come and sort us out?
If Mr Tosh finds it impossible to recognise that he has a responsibility and that when rules are inappropriate in the circumstance, they should be bent or changed, I cannot understand why anyone would vote for him or his party in future. In effect he is saying, "It is not my problem; it is someone else's problem. Do not come to me; knock on the door of the local authority."
Mr Tosh's harking back to something that is irrelevant to people who are suffering does our democracy no good whatever. There is an enormous underspend in Scotland, in the Parliament and at the disposal of the Executive. Is Mr Tosh trying to say that we should not make use of that underspend to address directly the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our country without first having an inquiry and finding out where local authority responsibility lies? That is an absolute abdication of responsibility. It is not an advert for democracy and it is certainly not an advert that will lead the Tory party back to power here or anywhere else in Scotland.
I confess that I am somewhat surprised to be here, but it is because of happy circumstances. My colleague Nicol Stephen and his wife had a baby daughter on Sunday. I am sure the chamber will join me in congratulating them. I suppose it is one way for him to ensure the continuation of his portfolio, if a fairly drastic one.
Before I start, I should declare a sort of interest, because I contribute—I think uniquely among MSPs—two of the 15,700 children who are in the Scottish Borders Council education system. Therefore, I have a considerable interest in the matter as a parent, let alone as an MSP or as a Government minister. I have also signed—twice, I think—the Borders residents' petition, because irrespective of whether it is defective or whether there is due process in it, it is an important expression of Borderers' opinions. That is important for our democracy to recognise. I have no particular concerns about that.
The member supported the petition.
Well, I would not have signed the petition if I did not support it, would I?
The Borders educational situation is a matter for serious worry, as all MSPs know from their postbags. Ensuring good educational provision for all children, including those with special educational needs, is a demanding task for all local authorities, not just for Scottish Borders Council. Making such provision, however, is precisely what the people of Scotland expect councils to do.
The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 states that education authorities have a duty to ensure that the education that they provide is directed to developing the child or young person to their fullest potential. Parents and children want to see that duty fulfilled in its entirety. The Executive has put in place a legislative framework and guidance to assist and encourage authorities in their improvements.
I have a response to Robin Harper's important point. My understanding is that the duty in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 to prepare accessibility strategies will come into force in England and Wales in September 2002. Scottish ministers are committed to imposing a similar duty on education authorities in Scotland. They expect to announce those proposals shortly.
When? Give us a date.
I regret that I cannot give the member a date, because the matter is not in my portfolio. However, I assure the member that ministers intend to address that point.
We should not forget that this issue has arisen at a time when the Scottish Executive is committing substantial additional resources to local government and to improving educational standards in particular. We met and exceeded our commitment to fund the McCrone recommendations.
I will put on record a few figures that relate to the Borders. We have provided for further increases in unhypothecated general grant support. Overall, total Executive revenue grant support to Scottish Borders Council has increased this year by about £8 million, or 6.6 per cent, to more than £125 million and further above-inflation increases have been confirmed for each of the next two years. I understand that that amounts to a 19 per cent increase over the three years for which allocations have been made. In addition, we have announced further financial provision for schools from this year's budget consequentials and the school buildings improvement fund. Resources of £220,000 and £255,000 have been set aside for the Borders from those funds. Last November, £416,000 was made available. That is a total of nearly £1 million in a calendar year.
The investment that we have provided through the settlement and additional allocations shows the Executive's commitment to raising standards in education. It is vital that local authorities aim to manage effectively the additional resources that we are providing for education and other services.
One month after £416,000 was allocated to Scottish Borders Council, the council cut £350,000 from its budget, so the net amount was the difference. An official has admitted that in a letter to me. The figures are all very dazzling, but they conceal the truth.
There is no doubt that Christine Grahame is correct. That fact was found out not only by her. It is clear that Scottish Borders Council removed the money. That was well known at the time. I do not think that that decision was particularly wise, but that was the decision that was taken locally.
Decisions need to be made at a local level. Local authorities need to maintain autonomy to allow them to respond to the diversity of local circumstances. The Executive wants to maintain that approach to keep the creativity and innovation that many authorities already show.
That does not mean that if councils compromise the quality of children's education, the Executive will stand by and do nothing. I will now make an important point, which it is useful to put on the public record. Well-established procedures exist for investigating difficulties that arise in a council's management of its resources. As we know, the Accounts Commission is utilising those procedures and investigating the authority's finances. Following initial investigations by the controller of audit, the Accounts Commission will consider his report and what further action, if any, it wishes to take. My understanding is that the report may be available next week. That will be helpful.
In addition, as Mr McConnell made clear this afternoon, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education will inspect the education department after the Accounts Commission has completed its inquiry. We are not far from hearing answers to some of the questions that members posed this afternoon.
I am sure that the Accounts Commission, like HMIE, can apportion blame. The Accounts Commission can also punish. However, we are talking about a point that several SNP members have made—how do we put in resources to help children who are suffering? The minister has almost finished his speech. Between now and the end of the speech, I and many in the chamber will look for an indication of some money to help the children whom Christine Grahame talked about. If we do not get that, I am sorry to say that the minister's performance will not have been good enough.
I thank Mr Russell for his intervention. It will not have escaped his attention that I am not the Minister for Finance and Local Government. I can say that if additional resources are allocated from end-year flexibility, I have an assurance from Mr McConnell that they will be directed in the best way possible to the schools concerned.
Some facts in the debate have not been accurate. For example, the virement was not £525,000 but £358,000. I have considerable concerns, which I have raised with my colleagues, about the autism unit at Howdenburn Primary School. The council decided not to proceed. That decision may have some benefit. That is because extra travelling might be involved if the children who currently use Denholm and St Ronan's primary schools have to go to Jedburgh. Given the unfortunate circumstances, the council may be able to rethink its position. The Executive will monitor the situation.
I will conclude by addressing the points that Christine Grahame made about special educational needs transport, which has caused a great deal of grief to the individual parents concerned. I have made representations. It would have been courteous of the member if she had informed the constituency representatives that she was dealing with the cases. That might have enabled us to share in the action that has been taken on the matter.
I say to Scottish Borders Council that it must examine the situation. I have written to the convener of the council, asking him, given the circumstances, to take a political decision to assist. As Christine Grahame rightly says, the position with regard to those children and others is unacceptable and should be altered. I look forward to receiving a favourable response from the council.
I believe that I have taken up more than my allocated time. The debate was useful. It was also useful to have it at this time. Perhaps we will be able to return to the subject when some of the reports that are due out imminently have seen the light of day. It is welcome and perhaps opportune that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee is going to Galashiels. That might give the committee an opportunity to consider the reports. I look forward to it doing so.
Meeting closed at 17:56.