Special Educational Needs
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-823, in the name of Peter Peacock, on special educational needs. Members who want to speak in the debate should press their request-to-speak button.
I welcome the opportunity to open this afternoon's debate on a very important area of Scottish policy that has not, perhaps, received as much public attention as it could and should have had over past years. It relates to the policies for children and young people with special educational needs.
I am aware that this is an area of concern to many members of the Parliament, which reflects the concern of the wider Scottish community to do all we can to support children with special needs. The Executive is setting out to undertake an extensive programme of work in relation to special educational needs. Today is not only an important opportunity to take stock of what we are doing, but an opportunity to identify what more can be done and a chance to air issues that people want to be addressed in the short, medium and longer terms.
The issues that will be identified in today's debate—I hope that there will be many of them—will help the national special educational needs advisory forum, which we have recently established, to focus on priorities for future action.
There have been two major consultation exercises on special educational needs in recent years. In 1998, Brian Wilson, one of my predecessors who took a particular interest in these matters, launched a discussion paper. More recently, the Riddell committee made significant recommendations. The responses to both have broadly endorsed the Executive's approach. Essentially, our policies for children and young people with special educational needs flow from our desire to develop an inclusive society.
We have made it clear that we are heavily committed to giving every young person the best start in life, allowing every young person to develop to their full potential, whatever their needs. The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill places, I am pleased to say, a new duty on an education authority to secure education that is directed to the development of the personality, of talents and of the mental and physical abilities of the child or young person—every child and young person—to their fullest potential. That clearly includes children who need additional support to access the curriculum and to develop their skills and abilities.
On Tuesday of this week, we introduced an amendment to the bill to include a presumption that mainstream school should be the first option for all children and young people in Scotland. The bill, as amended, now includes that presumption. I am grateful for the all-party support for that. The change to the bill proceeding through Parliament sends a powerful signal that the needs and interests of those among us with special educational needs are at the heart of our education policy.
However, it is not just a powerful signal. The bill places new duties on councils to include all young people with special educational needs in our mainstream schools unless there is a very, very good reason not to do so. The inclusion of children with special educational needs in mainstream schools assists schools to develop an inclusive ethos and introduces all children to a wider range of experience than would otherwise be the case.
The bill also strengthens the rights of children who are unable to attend school because of ill health, or who have recurrent periods of absence through illness or because of their need for medical treatment, to receive the appropriate support from their school.
We recognise that additional support requires additional resources. We have introduced a £12 million inclusion programme, starting in April this year, to assist local authorities in including children with special educational needs under mainstream provision. Local authorities are using funding to develop their own inclusive policies, with SEN bases in mainstream primary and secondary schools, with improved access to buildings for pupils with disabilities and with the provision of additional auxiliary staff.
In our commitment to inclusive policies, we recognise that some children need a lot of specialised help that cannot always be provided in mainstream schooling. That is particularly important for children whose needs are complex or severe, or who require support from a range of specialist services.
We are committed to a diversity of provision that gives parents—and children—an element of choice. What is important is that children and young people receive an education that meets their particular needs at their particular stage of development. We want those needs to be met as close to their homes as possible, but we recognise that, sometimes, pupils will receive a more inclusive educational experience in a special school setting than in a mainstream setting.
The availability of information on rights and choices is crucial to meeting the needs of young people with special educational needs. We are trying to help by supporting parents and families by providing them with the information they need to make informed decisions about their children's education and by assisting them in their dealings with local authorities, which can often be troublesome and difficult.
We have established a national information and advice line, called Enquire, for parents and families of children with special educational needs and for carers. We are providing Children in Scotland with £621,000 over three years to run the service. In the first six months, Enquire has dealt with more than 350 calls for information and support. It has produced, in partnership with the Scottish Executive, a new guide "Enquire – The Parents' Guide to Special Educational Needs". Enquire will work with parents and local authorities to develop pilot mediation projects with a view to identifying good practice in resolving disputes.
It is essential that staff in schools receive support to develop their skills in meeting the needs of all children. In-service training is an important way of ensuring that local authorities continue to develop the level of special educational needs expertise available to schools in their area. We have more than doubled the provision available for staff development and training in special educational needs and are providing £5.3 million a year for in-service training. In 1999-2000, more than 13,000 people participated in in-service special educational needs training courses and events. The Executive-funded national special educational needs co-ordination project has constructed professional development awards for learning support staff and teachers.
Staff in school also need back-up from specialist support staff. We have more than doubled the provision to £6.5 million a year for local authorities to secure speech and language therapy for pupils with records of needs. We have increased funding for educational psychology training. Over two years, the number of trainee educational psychologists has increased from 24 a year to 34 a year. We are committed to reviewing funding and supply arrangement services in both areas.
The minister will be aware of the particular problem of the recruitment of speech and language therapists in rural areas. What efforts have been made in that regard?
There have been problems with recruitment across the board but, as Mr Hamilton says, it is sometimes difficult to attract staff to certain rural areas. If the local authorities tell us what we can do to help in that regard, we will be more than happy to do so. I would be willing to look at the details of the problem with the new national special educational needs forum.
We recognise the role that the voluntary sector and non-statutory sectors can play. They can provide information and advice for parents and families and support partnerships with schools, identify new means of applying technology to improve access to the curriculum and facilities and support the development of the individual with special educational needs.
We are providing £6 million over three years for innovative special educational needs projects and are seeking to promote new thinking and new approaches. We have funded Barnardos (Scotland) to develop mentoring schemes to provide personal support to children and young people with behavioural problems. We have funded Capability Scotland to develop a support network for young people who are making the transition from school to post-school provision. We have also funded Parent to Parent Tayside to pilot peer support programmes for young people with special educational needs in mainstream education to promote inclusion and self -awareness.
We have put in place a significant programme of action to help meet the special educational needs of children and young people at school. However, we are not complacent and are continually examining ways in which to improve services, identify needs, locate gaps in provision, develop new types of service provision and find new ways of delivering services. We are advancing our approach to children and young people with special educational needs. An important way in which we will do that will be through the new national special educational needs forum in which I am taking a personal interest and of which I will be the chair.
The forum will advise ministers on the development and implementation of policies to improve standards of provision for special educational needs and on their consistent application throughout Scotland. It will consider issues such as the record of needs process, which has attracted criticism from a number of quarters for being too cumbersome and bureaucratic. That will be the forum's first priority.
It will also consider the need to improve inter-agency and inter-authority working. Both those concerns were highlighted by the recent Riddell committee report into the education of children with severe low incidence needs. The forum will examine the links between the Riddell report, the recent Beattie committee report into post-school provision and the report that was launched today on the review of services for adults and children with learning disabilities.
The forum will want to hear a wide range of views from across the sectors that are interested in these matters, including those of children and young people. We intend to give the forum the research capacity and the resources to undertake consultation and research exercises that may be identified.
We will consider different ways of enabling people to present views to the forum, including establishing the forum's own website. We will also take particular account of the findings of the special educational needs inquiry, which is being undertaken by colleagues in the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.
I have touched on a number of the actions that we are taking on special educational needs: legislative changes and policy reviews; support for parents, families and children; more opportunities for staff development and training; increased resources for local authorities and schools; and additional support for the voluntary sector. However, we are not complacent; we want to take matters further. Judging by comments that were made before this debate, I am confident that many contributions will be made today that will give us clues and ideas concerning what we need to do further. I look forward to hearing what will be said in the debate, and I shall respond to it.
I am sorry that the amendment in the name of Nicola Sturgeon would expunge the Executive's record from the proceedings. I would have liked to accept that amendment, as I hope that the Parliament will not be divided on this issue. I shall hear the arguments that Brian Monteith will make in support of the Conservative amendment before I respond to it.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the publication on 9 May 2000 of the Scottish Executive's progress report Improving our Schools: The Special Educational Needs Programme of Action and endorses the Executive's policies of support for children and young people with special educational needs.
I welcome the opening up of the debate on special educational needs that has resulted from the Riddell report, the setting up of the national advisory forum and the inquiry that is being conducted by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.
The attention on SEN provision is welcome and certainly overdue. I issue a word of caution, however, about the possible overlap and confusion between the different inquiries. I note that the document that was published by the Executive earlier this week makes no reference at all to the inquiry of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee into special educational needs provision. I was glad to hear the minister refer to that inquiry in his opening remarks—albeit in a passing reference—and I ask him for an assurance that the Executive and the advisory forum will take account of the committee's findings and draw on the work that the committee will undertake during its inquiry.
Back in 1998, the Scottish Office green paper on special educational needs acknowledged that the present system—including the system of recording—is not "broadly satisfactory". From the evidence that has been submitted so far to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's inquiry, most people would have to conclude that that was an understatement. There is no doubt that progress has been made towards improving the system, and I am happy to acknowledge that. In response to the minister's remarks about the SNP's amendment, I draw his attention to the fact that that amendment endorses the progress that has been made towards better support: it simply says that more needs to be done.
I welcome especially the emphasis on inclusion and the presumption that children with special educational needs should be educated in mainstream schools. The SNP was happy to support the amendment to the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill that the Executive moved earlier this week. Nevertheless, I have concerns, which I voiced with the minister during the meeting on Tuesday, that the opt-out clauses that are to be given to authorities may be too wide-ranging. We need an assurance that local authorities will not too easily be able to excuse themselves from the obligation to provide mainstream education.
When we talk about inclusion and mainstream schooling, we must be careful not to confuse inclusion with integration. As the minister rightly recognises, inclusion is about giving people choices that will enable them to fulfil their potential. Sometimes it will not be in a child's best interests to be educated in mainstream schools. For a profoundly deaf child who communicates only in sign language, there could surely be nothing more isolating, nothing more likely to exclude, than to be put into a mainstream school with other children who do not speak his or her language.
That is why we need special schools, such as Donaldson's school for the deaf, that are national centres of excellence. I share the concerns expressed by many people, and in the Conservative amendment, about the removal of grant aid to the seven special schools in Scotland and the threat that that poses to their future. Further discussion is needed with those schools—and the communities they serve—to ensure that the change does not harm their ability to survive and flourish. I look forward to the minister's comments on that in his summing up.
We must ensure that children with special needs being in mainstream education is not simply a cheap alternative. According to Children in Scotland, most of the calls to the Enquire helpline are from parents of children who are having bad experiences in mainstream schools because of poor facilities and a lack of properly trained professional support.
The £12 million inclusion programme is welcome and I commend the Executive for it but it must be seen in the context of this year's cuts in local authority provision. Examples include the educational psychology posts cancelled in East Dunbartonshire, Stirling Council's reductions in special educational needs and psychological services, and Fife Council's staff development rationalisation. That is what is happening around Scotland and the context in which the Executive's commitments must be viewed.
Although progress has been made, a great deal must still be done, as the SNP amendment acknowledges. I hope that this afternoon we can avoid some of the self-congratulatory nonsense that too often characterises Executive debates and concentrate on the challenges ahead. I ask the minister, in the light of my comments, to reconsider and to accept the SNP amendment.
We must tackle the inequality in provision across Scotland. One of the striking features of the evidence submitted to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee is that quality provision is too often a geographical lottery. In some areas there are too few staff to carry out assessments and deliver specialist services. There is a lack of professional support for families who disagree with assessments, which can stand in the way of accessing services. In such cases families often have to send their children outwith their own local authority area to access services that they should be entitled to locally.
Inequalities are suffered by children with certain conditions. A great deal of frustration is felt by some parents of children with Asperger's syndrome, which tends not to be identified or given the priority it should have. Children with behavioural difficulties are often at greatest risk of exclusion from school and there is no consistency across Scotland in the provision of records of needs for such children.
Last week, we debated the important topic of discipline in schools. How many children who are excluded are really children with special educational needs who should receive appropriate support? The variations in provision must be tackled. There should be a national code of practice for special educational needs to ensure consistent and minimum standards across Scotland.
We have too few educational psychologists and speech and language therapists. I recognise that efforts are being made to increase the number, but, as Children in Scotland said to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee,
"given such specialists' ever-increasing remits, it is unclear whether the increase will be sufficient".
Training for staff working with children with special needs must also be a priority. I welcome what the minister said about that, but the position of SEN auxiliaries in mainstream schools is of concern. The pay and conditions of new classroom auxiliaries are better than those of SEN auxiliaries. That must be addressed if we are to avoid losing skilled and dedicated auxiliaries.
Inter-agency working is of course important. Everyone agrees that there must be a joined-up approach from education, social work and health. I know that the advisory forum is looking at inter-agency joint funding. Again, more should be done. Even the terminology presents a barrier to joined-up working and thinking. The different terms used—special educational needs in education law, children in need in child care law, disability in social work law—have different definitions. That must be sorted out if we are genuinely to encourage a joined-up approach.
The minister mentioned the bill that is currently going through Westminster to extend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to cover education. In Scotland, unlike in England, that will not prevent discrimination on the basis of the physical features of a school. I would welcome his assurance that that will be addressed.
My final point is about poverty. Poverty is the factor that, more than any other, excludes people with children with special needs. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, it costs £7,000 a year to raise a child with special needs, compared with £2,000 a year for a child without special needs. Perhaps the minister could say something in summing up about how this devolved Parliament might tackle that greatest of barriers to inclusion.
Much has been done to improve provision, but there is a long way to go. We do not need pats on the back; we just need a determination to get on with the job.
I move amendment S1M-823.1, to leave out from "the Executive's policies" to end and insert:
"the progress made towards better support for children and young people with special educational needs; notes that a great deal of work is still required to ensure equality of provision across Scotland, improved access to and within mainstream schools, effective inter-agency co-operation and properly funded staff development and training, and looks forward to receiving the report of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's inquiry into special needs provision."
I welcome the Executive's decision to debate its programme of action on special educational needs because it is an area that I have taken an interest in for some time, as members will be aware. Indeed, I previously lodged a motion on the consequences of the Riddell report and was pleased that Ian Welsh's request that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee conduct an investigation into special educational needs was taken up.
As can be seen from our amendment, the Conservatives agree with the principles of the way forward suggested by the Executive in the programme of action. There are, however, two areas of dispute that the minister may be able to help us with. The first concerns the interpretation of what the Executive's presumption of inclusion means in practice. Although we agree with the general principle, we may disagree on how inclusion is achieved.
Our second disagreement is over the future and grant-aided status of Scotland's seven special schools, which cater for children with severe low-incidence disabilities. Unlike the Riddell report and the early response from the Executive, we do not agree that grant-aided status should be ended. The Executive's announcement of support for the Riddell report on that issue was, to say the least, premature, and the decision was taken without any reference to Parliament. Today's debate is a big step forward, but I cannot give as full and detailed an argument as I would like in the five minutes that are available to me.
Our difficulty with the Executive's understanding of inclusion is that it appears to believe that inclusion means integration. Perhaps the minister will correct me later if I have misunderstood him. We challenge any such assumption. Integration is not always appropriate for all children, as it does not ensure social inclusion for the children involved. Quite often, as Nicola Sturgeon pointed out, children with hearing disabilities feel a need for a community of pupils that allows them to feel included. That provides for their emotional as well as their educational needs and allows them to interact in a way that they may not be able to if they are integrated into a mainstream school. A mainstream school in which none of the other pupils shares those children's difficulties can often make such children feel excluded. In the case of deaf children, that can be a fundamental difference of language.
However, we agree that mainstream education should be open to as many children as possible. As the minister said, I and other members supported his amendment at stage 2 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill. We want the views of the children concerned and their parents to be taken fully into account.
Mr Monteith mentioned the problems faced by many young people with special educational needs in fitting into mainstream schools. Does he accept that, for many young people in mainstream schools, inclusion is an issue of equal opportunity? Does he agree that we ought to promote the notion of inclusion by working with young people in mainstream schools to help them accommodate some of the young people who could benefit from inclusion?
I have said nothing to disagree with that argument. We seek to work to achieve integration where people wish to have it and there are many parents who would like to achieve that. We believe that education must be tailored to the child's individual needs, whatever they may be, but especially where a child has special needs. The Executive can expect our support on inclusion only if it is handled sensitively, is based on the needs of individual children and does not become a one-size-fits-all policy.
Given the unique needs of pupil groups at specialist schools, it is fair to presume that many of the councils in whose areas their parents live will have tried all the local options before sending pupils out of their area. Specialist schools clearly fulfil a need that would not be met otherwise and are an important national asset. If they have weaknesses or failings, they should be helped to rectify them and to develop into national centres of excellence, rather than be threatened with the loss of financial support.
Special schools often prepare a child for integration into a mainstream school, so they should be seen as complementary to the Executive's aim. With changes in birth patterns and improvements in medical science, many more children are born, and survive, with severe disabilities. Unlike children with mild difficulties, whose needs can increasingly be met in mainstream education, those children often need care and education in a specialist environment.
Because of the growing number of children with severe disabilities, we must maintain a national resource base of special needs teachers. A critical mass can be provided by the current grant-aided system. That would be lost if the schools were threatened by the loss of grant aid. If the grant aid is devolved, inappropriate provision may be bought simply because it is available locally—I am sure that the minister would not wish that.
Specialist schools also need grant-aided status to provide stability. Under the proposed arrangements, with no guarantee of future pupil flow, fees charged to councils would undoubtedly increase sharply and, eventually, some schools would be forced to become fully independent, surviving in the private sector, as local authorities tried to make their own provision in mainstream schools.
Wind up, please.
Certainly.
I have highlighted to the Parliament the concern that the Riddell report is being pushed through too quickly—a matter that I raised in the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I am pleased that ministers have agreed to delay implementation of the report's recommendations for a year. That was the minimum required, as the late publication of the report meant initially that there were only four months from the end of the consultation period to implementation of the proposals.
I hope that the programme of action's moderate words on revised funding mean that ministers will listen to the concerns that I have raised today. I also hope that the Executive will not only hold discussions with schools and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities but that it will take on board the views of the Parliament's Education, Culture and Sport Committee. The committee should be allowed to review special educational needs provision in a dispassionate, informed and non-partisan way. If that happens, I am sure that the issues that I have raised today will be addressed. If we hold to the principle that to achieve genuine social inclusion we need specialist provision as well as integration, we will not go too far wrong.
I move amendment S1M-823.2, to insert at end:
"but expresses its concern that the Riddell Report on the Education of Children with Severe Low Incidence Disabilities proposes that grant-aid funding for the seven special schools serving these children be ended and the funds distributed to local authorities; notes that this could jeopardise the future of the special educational needs schools which provide national centres of excellence; notes that any change from national funding could dilute specialist provision and detrimentally affect the service to children, and agrees that the schools must continue to be funded through grant-aided status."
I listened with great interest to the valuable and worthy speeches of Nicola Sturgeon, Brian Monteith and the minister. I will be brief in my comments.
For too long, the issue of special educational needs has been seen as the poor relation. We should all take pride in the fact that it has been flagged up in the Parliament and that we are having this debate.
Integration is very much the name of the game—it is the theme that underlies the Executive's programme of action.
I submit to the Parliament that, in an ideal world, children who come out of integrated, mainstream education have a pocketful of advantages that, sadly, sometimes does not fall to those who have been in special education. I say to Mr Monteith that those advantages arise from the value of mixing and of contact with children of different abilities, different backgrounds and different physical requirements.
I particularly take on board the reference made in the document to the involvement of parents, children and young people, which is absolutely vital. In previous weeks, we have touched on the importance of including parents in matters of discipline and so on, but I suggest to the minister that total involvement is linked to his, and Mr Galbraith's, thoughts on community schools.
The arrival of the community school is closely linked to the subject of children with special educational needs. That mix of child education, adult education, special educational needs, social work and so on can make all the difference. Involving children in mainstream education is preparing them for life, and a community school is the ideal scenario for that.
I also welcome the statutory duty placed on local authorities to provide education for children who are unable to get to school. That will tie in nicely with community schools.
Members must remember that the Riddell report is an authoritative document and was well thought out. The Executive has taken on the vast majority of its proposals, so the Executive is putting its money where its mouth is. I will not reiterate the details that the minister gave us of the money, but they are there for all to see.
Children in Scotland welcomes the proposals from the Scottish Executive. It says that we must do more in schools that lie at our own hand, but remember this: it is an umbrella organisation for children, and it is with us.
I would like to consider what Brian Monteith is thinking about. I have some sympathy with his approach, but I would like to examine it more closely. There is little difference between what Nicola Sturgeon and I—and indeed the minister—are saying. It is a question of two boats sailing in the same direction. One sees choppier water ahead than the other does. That is by the by. The point about children with special educational needs is that one has to be careful not to ghettoise them.
I seek reassurance from the minister about the future of schools such as Donaldson's College. I do not believe for one minute that the Scottish Executive is advocating the sudden death of such excellent institutions. Mr Monteith is right that there will always be children who cannot be wholly taken into mainstream education and who will have a special need. Last night, I gave the address at a prizegiving at my old school Tain Royal Academy. One of the girls who came up for a prize was a 15-year-old who suffers badly from cystic fibrosis. In another world, she might not have been at Tain Royal Academy, but in fact she is a much-loved member of that school. One of the biggest cheers that I heard last night was when she went up for her prize. That is the ideal of inclusion.
Of course it is not easy, and it will not come about overnight, but everyone—parents, teachers and young people—should be involved. I look at Rhona Brankin and am reminded that inclusion is also about culture and art in community schools. I am gratified to see the Deputy Minister for Children and Education and the Deputy Minister for Culture and Sport sitting beside each other. That is the message which we should send out.
That young lass with cystic fibrosis is doing well in music, which shows that total involvement with classmates can work. Not everyone is going to say, "You're deaf; you're a daftie," or something like that. I believe that the human spirit is better than that. Brian Monteith is right: there will always be a need in relation to the few who cannot be integrated, but the whole point of what the Executive is saying today is that we must move towards including people more. It makes for a better school life, and it better prepares those with special educational needs for life.
There is little time remaining for the debate, so I ask members to keep to the four-minute time limit.
I will be brief. I welcome this debate on special educational needs, and the focus on that important issue. I also welcome the minister's commitment to work with a number of agencies, including Children in Scotland. As we have heard, the Education, Culture and Sport Committee is conducting an inquiry into special educational provision. I hope that the inquiry will look at the issue of recording.
How well the system works depends on where people live. Many parents feel that they have to fight to be heard, using their much-needed energy to fight the system, rather than support their children. Some parents give up. They say that there is a lack of service information for parents and children, and a lack of support for them to participate in assessments and service decisions. I understand that a number of parents have contacted the Enquire helpline complaining that they do not get enough information, and saying that sometimes they are misinformed.
We must have a system that supports parents, and which does not make children's education a battleground when we try to ensure appropriate provision. The system must involve children and parents in planning, and be recognised by parents, teachers and education authorities alike as a workable system. A code of practice to ensure a minimum standard for special educational needs across Scotland should be established. I welcome the minister's commitment to look at the issue.
The Scottish National party supports inclusive education, and welcomes the report of the Riddell committee. A number of recommendations were made by Riddell, and I will highlight one or two of them.
Recommendation 3 states that the Executive should examine what further support could be made available to ensure that pupils with special educational needs are included in mainstream education. While the additional moneys that have been announced by the minister are welcome, it would be useful to know what monitoring procedures are in place to ensure that that expenditure achieves results in increasing the number of children in mainstream education.
Recommendation 13, which concerns integrated play and learning opportunities, is important as segregated education provides little interaction between disabled and able-bodied children. The problem is that the services that provide such opportunities are run on a shoestring and desperately need adequate resources. What resources will be made available for integrated play and learning opportunities?
Recommendations 18 and 19 deal with extending the school week for special educational needs pupils. The Executive has endorsed that, but will any additional resources be made available for that purpose?
The key point must be that, wherever possible, children with special educational needs should be educated in mainstream schools, with all the necessary resources being provided to make that happen. That might involve additional short-term costs, but the considerable long-term gains and the increase in academic and social opportunities for children with disabilities are surely worth that investment.
The Executive has said that the costs of inclusion in mainstream schools are not to be disproportionate to the outcome, but I should like the minister to clarify that. What is the measure of disproportionate cost? How will it be decided whether the resources that are required to enable a child with disabilities to attend a mainstream school are disproportionate? Disproportionate to what?
I want to raise the special problem of the deaf child, who usually has to go away to school. As I said in the members' debate that I secured on the subject, that problem could be solved, largely, if we had a proper number of sign language teachers. We have only 33, while Finland has 350. Perhaps if we had Finland's number, every deaf child, wherever they were born, might be able to attend a mainstream school.
I certainly agree with that, and hope that the minister will address that point.
My fear is that the disproportionate cost argument could be used as an opt-out to continue the poor record in Scotland of including children with special educational needs in mainstream education, whereby there has been no increase in numbers in 13 years. Cathy Peattie alluded to some of the reasons for that. The lack of mainstream efforts leads to the denial of parents' right to school choice, a right that is enjoyed by the families of able-bodied children.
I want to highlight a point that Nicola Sturgeon made. In the Executive's report, no mention is made of the review of special educational needs provision by the Parliament's Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I, too, seek reassurance that the minister will take on board that committee's report and recommendations.
When I read an Official Report of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, I noted the minister's response to concerns about equal opportunities being omitted from the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill. He said that equal opportunities come under
"existing UK legislation that covers matters of discrimination."—[Official Report, Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 5 April 2000; c 766.]
Will the minister clarify that? Surely that does not rule out, in any way, the Scottish Parliament putting a duty on local authorities to promote equal opportunities. I certainly hope not. That would not be common sense and would be a great disservice to Scotland's people.
I hope that we can make it a right of special educational needs pupils to be educated in mainstream schools. If we do not do that, nothing will change. We must have an approach that is driven by the needs of the child and not constrained by a cost-driven agenda.
This afternoon's debate is a good example of why people voted for the Scottish Parliament. We can contrast that with yesterday's debate, which was an example of what people in Scotland are not looking for. Today we have an example of a committee of the Parliament and the Executive working together to promote a better quality of education for a section of our community that in the past has often been overlooked.
We are all aware not only of the needs of children with special needs, but the anxieties and frustrations that are faced by parents in seeking to do the right thing for their children. I know that that sometimes causes problems in education, when parents will not take no for an answer and refuse to face up to the difficulty facing their child. However, I have come across cases in which, if it had not been for the persistence of parents in promoting their child's interests, that child would not have received the education that they needed.
Too often I have seen cases of children suffering all the way through their education because time and again they and their parents were told that they did not have dyslexia, only for them to find out in adolescence, and perhaps even later, that they did. I know of a couple of children who have managed to get to university and to overcome a handicap that was not recognised in school. We need to ensure that children do not suffer that terrible disadvantage and that parents do not suffer the frustration of trying to do their best for their children without the support of people who should know better.
I should like the Executive to dwell on a couple of points. The first concerns the involvement of therapists in mainstream schools. The money given to local authorities to buy speech and language services is most welcome, but local authorities are experiencing problems in finding speech and language therapists to employ. There are also problems in bringing other therapists into schools—local authorities are not given money to buy physiotherapy and occupational therapy services. We need to consider a range of services for children with special needs.
We also need to consider the training of teachers. The Executive is to be congratulated on providing on-going training to teachers in the area of special needs through the SEN-specific grant, but we need to increase provision in pre-service training. Too often teachers arrive at schools unaware of the complexities of dealing with children with special needs.
The record of needs should also be re-examined. It might be redundant, given the move towards individual educational programmes that the manual of good practice has led to. However, as local authorities develop services based on examples of good practice, we must have a debate on the record of needs to ensure that we do not make the wrong decision.
We need to examine why parents are increasingly choosing to send children to specialist schools, which contradicts much of what we have heard today about involving children in the community in an inclusive way. Why is the number of children attending specialist schools rising when we are trying to promote social inclusion? In Renfrewshire, three schools this year—one secondary school and two primary schools—and a further secondary school next year are looking to take children with severe visual impairment and physical disability, thereby extending choice and inclusion. I know that this is not an easy debate, given the anxieties of parents, but I fully support the Executive in its community schools initiative.
We are right to extend opportunity and to ensure that children develop to their full potential when they are in school, but we should not forget that we are educating them for a purpose: to prepare them for life. When these children leave school, they should not be abandoned. There must be proper provision of careers services and education, to ensure a smooth path into employment.
I welcome the points made by Hugh Henry in particular. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons states that disabled people
"have the same fundamental rights as their fellow-citizens of the same age, which implies first and foremost the right to enjoy a decent life, as normal and full as possible."
Although social inclusion is an aspect to be considered, I suggest to the chamber that the main issue is not so much social inclusion, but empowerment—empowerment of the individual to make the most of their life and to fulfil themselves to the best of their abilities.
This is an important debate; many good points have been made. Clearly, much good work is going on in the field, as shown by the Beattie report, the Riddell report and so on.
One or two crucial points must be understood. If we do not tackle the issue correctly, there will be a sort of incremental loss. If we do not get hold of people—such as the people with dyslexia whom Hugh Henry spoke about—at an early stage of their primary education, they do not benefit from their education, they get frustrated, and they sometimes have behavioural problems. They move into their secondary education without their problems having been identified. Those problems are often masked by other problems. That is a tragedy. It is a loss of potential for that individual, and it might cause problems for the school as well.
At the other end of school education, a similar situation arises—Hugh Henry also mentioned this—with the overlap of school and college or further education facilities. Many people drop out, or play truant. That again might be linked to other difficulties that are often caused by a failure to pick up problems in the early stages. We have to get the links between schools and further education right. People should not be abandoned by the system, as so often happens. Their problems should be picked up, and work done on those problems should be followed through. Particular groups of people will often need special attention to empower them to play their full part in life.
In the east end of Glasgow, there is an organisation called Rathbone Community Industry—I am sure that the minister is aware of it. Its remit, like that of other similar organisations, is to empower people to overcome early problems that they might have had. Its work relates not only to schools; it covers the longer term.
As a lawyer, I have some experience of records of needs. I concur with the observations made in the reports and in today's debate on their cumbersome nature. We have to consider the underlying principle, which relates to the culture. Issues often seem be dealt with merely by having something down on paper, when we should be considering the spirit of the matter, which is the desire to support and help people who have such problems.
We are dealing with our fellow citizens who have particular disabilities of one sort or another. People from Ashcraig school in Glasgow recently came to the Parliament. Many of the children are in wheelchairs and have quite severe physical handicaps. They have great spirit and great ability; it would be a tragedy in both personal and social terms if our society could not make use of the talents of such children. We should regard people as being on a spectrum rather than in particular categories. Empowerment is the key, and I should like to leave that message with the minister.
I support the motion. Nicola Sturgeon said that the Executive should not expect singular praise for the work of the Parliament on this issue. Before the business manager sends me one of the dreaded pager messages, I would like to say that I agree with Nicola on that point. As Hugh Henry suggested, the whole Parliament should take credit for prioritising an issue that faces parents, pupils and organisations that have been affected by decades of being—as Jamie Stone pointed out—the poor relations.
I would like to focus on the special educational needs of pupils who have physical disabilities and health needs. Like my colleague Robert Brown, I would like to mention Ashcraig school in my constituency, and to put on record my admiration for the dedication of the pupils, staff and parents who make Ashcraig such a successful school.
In the Executive's document, great emphasis is placed on ensuring that children are educated in mainstream education. I think that all of us would agree with that emphasis. One third of the pupils at Ashcraig school come from mainstream primary education. Many of those children do not continue into mainstream secondary education because of issues such as wheelchair access, the absence of peer groups and intensive medical needs. Many of the children at Ashcraig school spend an hour of their school day on intensive medical needs. We must take that into consideration. I should like the minister to comment on that point.
We should always take parental choice into consideration. Parents must always have quality choices. The Riddell advisory committee has set out the need for additional specialist provision to meet the needs of children who attend schools such as Ashcraig. For us to move in that direction, there will have to be a cultural shift within local authorities and education authorities. Schools with specialist requirements are the poor relations.
I have taken up a case on behalf of Ashcraig secondary school: it applied for public-private partnership funding and was advised that it was not part of the bid for Glasgow's programme. We should address the serious matter of why Ashcraig secondary school has been omitted from the original plan that every secondary school in Glasgow should be included in the public-private partnership programme.
We want the action plan to be implemented. That is clear and that is why I support the Executive's motion; it is clear that it wants to act. It is our job as a Parliament to ensure that the action plan is monitored and that we continue to monitor it.
I welcome some of the announcements that the Executive has made on the issue and the constructive way in which it has approached the debate. I hope that if I make one or two criticisms, they will be taken in the same spirit of trying to find a solution.
The two substantial points that I will make link into the theme of equality. First, I will consider equality of access to services in rural areas, which I mentioned in an intervention. Many of the facilities, advice and specialists are not available in remote and rural communities—or they are available to a much lesser extent. As I am sure the minister is aware, all over the Highlands and Islands, there is a dearth of opportunity for people to access vital services such as counsellors, psychiatrists, psychologists and visual and hearing impairment specialists.
When we consider the Highlands and Islands—or all of rural Scotland—we must identify the specific problems there and produce a more focused solution to those problems. I asked the minister about recruitment in some of those areas. Whether it is for speech or language therapy or anything else, it is more difficult to recruit in rural areas, because the provision of other services sometimes makes it less attractive for people to move to those areas.
We are perhaps blessed by the fact that the minister has a background in that area, but I urge him to examine more closely what can be done. He said, correctly, that the consideration of those issues is for councils. One positive suggestion would be to do something about council funding. We cannot ignore cuts that have been made across council budgets. For example, in Argyll and Bute, the special islands needs allowance has still not been awarded. That would make a tangible difference. Although that is the responsibility of local government, it is also important that central Government understands that, as the funding agency, it has a role to play.
My second point is about equality of opportunity. One matter that has not been touched on in the debate is careers services for those with special educational needs. I have pursued that matter for some time. In relation to the social inclusion agenda, there is nothing that can do more to build self-confidence and interpersonal skills on the part of those with special educational needs than having a properly focused careers service. I am afraid that some of the work experience organised in schools, which used to be supported, has been cut. It is regrettable that that has been lost in many areas. The careers services need to have access in a joined-up network to specialist information, so that they can deal with those clients on their own merits.
The minister should examine the issue of careers services. In answer to a parliamentary question that I asked, Henry McLeish said that no resources were ring-fenced for that. The Executive position is that all clients are equal, and have the right to equality of treatment. Although I agree with that, in practice those who have special educational needs are put at the bottom of the pile. Whether we need a change in the philosophy, better guidelines or ring fencing, there has to be more creative thinking.
Although respite care is not strictly part of the debate, it ties in with it. I hope that some of the advances that have been made in respite care can be built on, not just in the provision of facilities but in the stimulation of clients, which is potentially an enormous step forward.
I welcome what the Executive has done, but I would welcome further comment from the minister on the points that I have raised. I am happy to provide him with information on the specific projects that I mentioned.
I echo some of the points that Hugh Henry made. As I have a son who is dyslexic, I know how my husband and I needed to fight sometimes to get appropriate support, such as a laptop, a reader, or a scribe in examinations. I acknowledge what Nicola Sturgeon said about the considerable variation in provision across Scotland.
I welcome Peter Peacock's opening speech. The Riddell committee report is an important start. The minister mentioned the need for additional resources. Certainly, the Executive is showing a resolve to examine new ways of addressing issues. The establishment of the national advisory forum is important, and it has already produced good points. I wish the Executive well. I hope that it will address the issue of special educational needs in conjunction with the inquiry of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.
The area on which I will concentrate is equity and special needs schools—I spoke on that when we discussed the issue previously. Although I welcome the move toward mainstreaming and regard it as important for gaining equity in the system, I think that there will always be some children who will need special schools or units. It will take some time to phase in mainstreaming because considerable resources will be needed to do that.
I will now address the subject of children in special schools and units. The Riddell report said:
"The Scottish Executive should issue advice to local authorities to the effect that the length of the school week in special schools and units should be similar to that in mainstream primary and secondary schools."
Has the advice note for local authorities been issued? Do we need to include a provision in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill that gives equity for special schools and units?
I hope that, when the Education, Culture and Sport Committee conducts its inquiry into special educational needs, it will examine the variation in the length of the school day for special schools and units.
I will focus on the situation of pupils who are diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. I remind members that next week is autism awareness week.
I have consulted widely among practitioners, parents and organisations, and have found that many autistic children do not receive the specialist care and education that they require and rightfully deserve. One of the reasons for that could be the sudden and dramatic increase in the number of children being diagnosed with the condition. The current estimate is that one child in every 500 suffers from the condition. Given that, 10 years ago, it was a rare condition affecting one child in 10,000, that is an alarming statistic.
Although the educational needs of those children have been acknowledged by the Government, it has not fulfilled its responsibility to the children, the practitioners, the parents and the carers. Currently, there are only three schools in Scotland that specialise in and are dedicated to the education of autistic children: Struan House in Alloa, Daldorch House in Ayrshire and Middlefield School in Glasgow. I would also like to acknowledge the specialist units—sometimes referred to as language or communication units—that are based in schools, particularly the unit in Renton primary school in West Dunbartonshire.
Concerns have been voiced, not only in West Dunbartonshire Council but nationwide, that there is a huge gap in secondary education provision and, even more important, post-school provision. That is not to say that the education system is not trying to address the growing problem, but the Government should be prepared to finance, support and encourage, not just with words but with action.
It should be stressed that inclusion or mainstreaming is not always the appropriate direction for children with autism spectrum disorder. The condition has varying degrees of impact and Asperger's syndrome, which is an associated condition, increases the difficulties faced by those affected.
The main concern that I have heard from everyone touched by autism is the lack of provision. West Dunbartonshire Council has identified special education needs as a priority, due to the increase in the number of children being diagnosed with autism. The council realises that the current provision is not sufficient. The council will encounter difficulties because of the many children being diagnosed with the condition and the real gap in provision for secondary education.
I would like to finish by asking the Minister for Children and Education, on behalf of the parents, teachers and practitioners, what pledges the Executive will make specifically to children with autism in terms of their education. Will it address the pressing need to establish a proper framework for education, pre-school to post-school? The answers to those questions will be anticipated widely by parents and carers across Scotland.
Some months ago in a surgery in Selkirk, a couple of parents came to see me who were worried about their youngster with severe educational difficulties, who was transferring from primary school, where she had been very happy, to secondary education. They asked me to write and support them in ensuring that she stayed in the local area and was not transferred to a special school.
Being a former teacher, I foresaw all the difficulties, and with a heavy heart I wrote to the education authority. I thought that I would not be able to please the parents because I was going to get a reply that said "What about the stairs?" and so on. However, the policy had changed and I was delighted because I was able to write to the parents and say that their daughter could attend the mainstream school with her friends. The culture is already changing, and I am delighted that this debate will support that development.
We need to be realistic and recognise that mainstreaming places extra demands on teachers. It is potentially a source of great fulfilment for teachers and there are great advantages for the other children in the school. It is good for everybody in the school community. I am delighted that the programme for action recognises the need to fund and expand training.
That brings me to resources, which must be adequate to the needs. There are many extra expenses such as those relating to transport, access to the buildings, support in the classroom and recreational areas where the children can be free from stress and bullying. I am sorry to say that I do not know whether £6 million is enough. It sounds like a lot of money, but we need to see whether it is enough in practice.
I welcome the progress report—it is an impressive list of initiatives and policies—which says that the special educational needs advisory forum will take the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's report into consideration. I worry about the special schools that have been mentioned. If the pupils of those schools, which we accept may still be necessary for some pupils in extreme circumstances, shed away from them, the viability of the schools will become a problem. I mentioned that recently in the committee. I am not sure how that change will be managed and at what point it will become critical. I hope that the minister is aware that it will take time.
I look forward to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee investigating properly the circumstances of SEN. I agree with an earlier speaker that there is a danger of a proliferation of information. However, I am happy that the issue of special educational needs is being dealt with. I hope that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee can come to conclusions that will progress the matter.
Children such as the one in Selkirk I spoke of are the ones who will benefit from this. If we all work together in the way in which we have spoken together today, we can make progress.
I am delighted to wind up on behalf of the Conservatives. Three of the seven grant-aided special schools are based in Edinburgh. As a list member for the Lothians, I have a strong interest in this issue and have met representatives from those schools to discuss the implications for them of the Riddell report that has been referred to on a number of occasions in the debate.
We agree that the option of mainstream education should be available to as many children as possible. However, the views of parents and children must also be listened to and education should be tailored to meet the special needs of individual children. Children should not be shoehorned, as a matter of course, into local mainstream schools simply because the principle of inclusion is elevated above a child-centred, needs-based approach.
As has been pointed out by many members, particularly Nicola Sturgeon, there is a danger that many special needs pupils will feel excluded in mainstream schooling through lack of social contact. Integration does not automatically mean inclusion. That is why we have great concerns about the Riddell report's recommendations with regard to the seven grant-aided special schools. They are an important national asset, and I know from my discussions with the head teacher at Harmeny school in Balerno that that school and others have very real fears about the implications of the end of their grant-aided status.
The specialised care provided in a school such as Harmeny is designed to prepare children with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties, over a period of two to three years of residency, to return to mainstream education. The work carried out by those schools patently cannot be carried out within a mainstream school because the children concerned have already been unable to cope in a mainstream setting. Such schools fulfil a need that would otherwise be unmet.
Schools such as Harmeny and the others that we are discussing today rely on a stable funding mechanism. There is no guarantee that placement fees paid by local authorities, which are to replace the annual Scottish Executive deficit funding, will come through. In the case of Harmeny, that amounts to something like £700,000 of income a year.
There will be real problems for such schools if there are fluctuations from year to year in the number of children that they are taking. I hope that the Executive does not proceed to implement the Riddell recommendations, but if it does, I hope that the minister will consider some kind of underwriting mechanism to try to even out the fluctuations in income that such schools might otherwise experience, to enable them to plan properly for the future and for the provision for children for whom there is no alternative in mainstream education.
It is essential to give parents and their children who have special educational needs a real choice, which requires impartiality in the provision of information about the schools and facilities that are available—for example, whether they are made available locally by a local authority or by a national grant-aided school. There is a danger, and clear temptation, for local authorities to recommend their own school rather than a national school, especially if that local authority is keen to develop a special needs facility and needs to reach a critical mass of pupil numbers.
I welcome the one-year delay in the implementation of the Riddell recommendations as speed of implementation was one of the main concerns of the grant-aided schools. However, we believe that grant-aided status is the most appropriate way of funding special needs schools, which is why we have lodged the amendment.
As we all know, this Executive—with one conspicuous exception—seems to have a strong aversion to the direct funding of schools and their independent management. We will debate on many occasions what is the most appropriate way of organising mainstream education in the mainstream schools in Scotland. However, today we are talking about special needs schools which cater for a very vulnerable group of children. I hope that the issue will not become a political football.
We must consider whether the needs of these children and young people are best served by adopting a policy that will threaten the viability of valuable national institutions such as the grant-aided schools, which are a very fine example of partnership between Government and the voluntary sector. The Executive rather rushed to judgment on the financial recommendations of the Riddell report. I hope that the minister will think again and that the chamber will support Mr Monteith's amendment.
In winding up for the SNP, I will reiterate the welcome given by Nicola Sturgeon and my colleagues to the substance and tone of this debate, and to the minister's opening remarks when he said that he was here to listen and learn and to proceed on that basis. I will highlight a few questions that remain about whether the Government can back its commitment on key areas with the necessary funding and resources.
At the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, it was disappointing to read what Nicola Sturgeon called the get-out clauses in the Government's amendments to section 13. The amended paragraphs 13(2)(b) and 13(2)(c) use words such as "incompatible" and "significant public expenditure". Surely such language should find no place in a presumption in favour of inclusive education. Last year, I attended the equity conference in Edinburgh, at which I heard evidence from the United States showing that children with the most severe physical and mental disabilities can be taught in mainstream schools with exceptional results for all pupils at the school.
Many organisations working with children with special needs will also be disappointed with the Deputy Minister for Children and Education's response to the amendment seeking to co-ordinate assessment undertaken under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. The minister should remember that children do not live their lives in compartments or in local authority departments. Their needs are educational, social, personal and familial. We should be pushing streamlining as well as mainstreaming. Although the amendment would have been a start towards that aim, the Government rejected it.
I want to return to the phrase "significant public expenditure". When we consider the provision of special educational needs, we must also examine the current settlement provided to local authorities by this Government to find the reality rather than the rhetoric, as Duncan Hamilton said. For example, in my constituency, East Renfrewshire Council has been praised in the past by parents, amongst others, as an authority committed to mainstream provision. However, the phrase "rationalisation of SEN support" appeared in this year's budget settlement with a saving of £80,000. This innocuous phrase meant the withdrawal of SEN auxiliaries from primary schools.
The parents of pupils who would have been left without their support were well nigh desperate when they contacted me. Those parents went on to convince the council that it should reverse its decision, but the anxiety that was suffered by everybody—parents, pupils and members of staff alike—should never have existed. Those services, however, will now always be at the mercy of the phrase "significant public expenditure".
Does Fiona McLeod acknowledge that East Renfrewshire Council's commitment to inclusion in special needs education is unsurpassed in Scotland? That council's record on SEN is recognised by the parents who were concerned and disappointed at the budget oversight—as I like to see it in retrospect. That oversight was overturned after pressure was applied by me and Labour councillors.
As I said, that caused great distress. The reality is that the rhetoric must be backed up by appropriate funding so that no one in East Renfrewshire, or anywhere else, will be put in such a position. We know from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's figures that it costs more money to provide mainstream education for children with special needs. We must, therefore, find that money.
I finish by reminding Peter Peacock of his commitment to listening and learning and I look forward to his acceptance of the SNP amendment as a first step towards that.
As I thought it would be when I opened it, this has been a thoughtful debate, but one in which there was never going to be enough time to hear all the contributions that members wanted to make. It is an issue that touches many of our personal lives and which members throughout the chamber care greatly about. I hope that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee will have more time to examine some of the issues.
I will try to address as many of the points that have been made as possible, but I cannot address them all in the time that is available.
I welcome Nicola Sturgeon's contribution and general support for the efforts of the Executive. Nicola mentioned a number of reports, such as the Beattie report, the report of the Riddell committee and the report on learning disabilities that Iain Gray and I launched this morning. She made the point, rightly, that we must ensure that confusion about policy does not arise in the Executive and that there must be strong co-ordination of policy. I can reassure Nicola Sturgeon on that. The fact that I was with Iain Gray this morning at the launch of the report illustrates that we talk to each other. We are trying to find the links between different areas of policy that affect disadvantaged young people. I assure the chamber that we will continue to give high priority to ensuring that that happens.
I was also asked by Shona Robison whether the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's report on special educational needs will, when it is completed, be submitted to the special educational needs advisory forum. I am more than happy to assure her that that will happen and we will ensure that the forum is kept abreast of developments.
A number of members—Fiona McLeod, Nicola Sturgeon and others—mentioned the provision in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill that makes a clear presumption in favour of inclusion in mainstream schooling of those with special educational needs. The bill provides for three exceptions, in which local authorities and parents acting together may consider that inclusion in mainstream education is not in the best interests of a child. I want to make it abundantly clear that the Executive does not regard any of the three reasons, or any combination of them, as an opt-out for local authorities. We are trying to achieve an inclusive policy and a thrust towards involving young people with special educational needs in mainstream education.
In designing a bill for the future we must create a framework that will allow for a debate between the child, parents and local authorities and that will take account of the best interests of the individual child. There is no opt-out clause or series of opt-out clauses, but there must be provision to examine the interests of any child at any time. That is the balance that we are trying to create. It has been the subject of much debate by experts in the field. I hope that we have found consensus and a way forward in relation to that.
A number of points were made by David McLetchie, Brian Monteith and Nicola Sturgeon about the seven grant-aided schools, and Duncan Hamilton made a point about rural areas that tied in with the grant-aided schools situation. That is a difficult area—the changes that are proposed for those seven schools are complex. The changes have not, however, simply appeared in ministers' minds, but have developed after close examination of the circumstances by the Riddell committee. That committee is greatly respected in its field and its work is held in high regard.
We seek in no way to undermine existing specialist schools or to suggest that they have no future in Scotland. However, we want to consider the evidence taken by the Riddell committee about how such schools operate. Specialist schools are funded nationally to recognise their national role, but not all of them provide a national resource; many of them provide local services for a local population. That is not true of all such schools, however, and Harmeny in particular does not fall into that category.
At the same time—Duncan Hamilton alluded to this—there are great difficulties in other parts of Scotland in making local provision. We want young people with learning difficulties and special educational needs to be catered for as close to their home as is humanly possible. That is why we want to redesign the configuration of funding, to allow funding to flow through local authorities so that they are better equipped to make local provision if they so choose.
Will the minister give way?
Allow me to develop my point.
However, if local authorities want to purchase places in specialist schools, they will be free to do so. The best interests of the individual child must prevail. I, for one, do not seek to fetter in any way what local authorities may choose to do.
Will the minister clarify what he is saying? Specialist educational provision may be on offer from a number of independently run, grant-aided schools. Is he saying that it would be acceptable for a local authority to offer such provision locally? In a sense, that would not be mainstream education either—a local authority would still be providing a specialist school.
That is a judgment for the local authority. In my opening remarks, I recognised that, depending on the numbers and the particular geographic area, being part of a specialist school might be more inclusive for some children. I do not rule out such provision. It is a matter for the local authority.
I understand the anxieties about the seven grant-aided schools. My colleague Iain Gray, who is the member for the constituency in which the Harmeny school is located, raised the issue with me several months ago. The reason that we have delayed the decision to implement the Riddell recommendations is that we recognise that this is a sensitive and complicated area and we want to take time to get the decision right. I can assure the chamber that we are working on significant transitional arrangements to address the point raised by David McLetchie. I am quite sure that when we publish those, they will go a long way towards satisfying the concerns that people have. I must make it clear, however, that we are committed to continuing with our decision, because we believe that it is right.
Shona Robison and Sylvia Jackson referred to the length of the school week for children with special educational needs. As I have indicated, our priority is to create a situation where the vast majority of children receive their schooling in a mainstream context. That alone should lead to more and more children receiving the normal school week consistent with their individual needs, which must be taken into account.
Equally, the Riddell committee made it clear that it did not think that there was a case for remaining specialist schools having a different school week for children with special educational needs. Such children should be treated the same as their peers. We agree with that point of view and will issue guidance to local authorities and others on how we expect such matters to be taken forward in future. We do not believe that there needs to be a provision in the bill to achieve that objective.
Hugh Henry raised a number of points about the need for early diagnosis of dyslexia. Robert Brown and Sylvia Jackson raised similar points. We subscribe fully to the point of view outlined by Hugh Henry. Parents should not find negotiations with their local authority to discover the right provision difficult. That is why we are interested in the advocacy and mediation projects being developed in the voluntary sector and want to monitor how those work. As Hugh Henry properly said, in-service training is crucial for the early diagnosis of not only dyslexia, but dyspraxia and other autism spectrum disorders, as highlighted by Lloyd Quinan. We recognise that and are committing resources to try to achieve greater effect from in-service training, to ensure that such issues are picked up as quickly as possible.
A number of members raised the issue of equality in rural areas. One of our aims for grant-aided schools and for reconfiguring expenditure is to try to ensure that more money is available locally, including in rural areas, to create local provision for young people.
I could go on for many hours picking up the points raised in the debate—they have been so substantial—but I do not intend to do so. I believe that the Executive's, and the chamber's, feeling is that we are making significant strides to improve services for children with special educational needs. We all recognise that we have more to do, and I will follow up the many good points made in today's debate. I commend the motion in my name to the Parliament.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I understand that there has been a press briefing within the last half-hour in regard to an Executive amendment, on sex education, to the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill. Might the Executive be able to tell us in this chamber whether we will be able to see that amendment before reading about it in the press tomorrow?
I have no knowledge of such matters, I am afraid.
On a point of order. I would have thought that it would be possible to rule out references to amendments, which have been lodged, before they are read by members. From what I have heard of it, it seems a very good amendment, but I do not think that it is for discussion here today.
I have not seen the amendment yet; no amendment exists until I have agreed it. Perhaps that is the short answer to the question.