Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4059, in the name of Adam Ingram, on the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill. I point out to members that time is limited in the debate so I will stop them when they get to their time limits.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to move that Parliament pass the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill.
I thank my parliamentary colleagues—particularly those who sit on the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee—for their input during the passage of the bill. I record my thanks, too, to the groups and individuals who provided oral and written evidence to the committee, briefings for MSPs and information and opinions to the Government. The bill deals with complex matters, and I am sure that all members acknowledge the contribution of those individuals and groups.
As I have said several times, it was never my intention for the bill to alter the ethos or fundamental building blocks of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, which is aimed at a broad group of children and young people with additional support needs. The bill amends the 2004 act in light of reports by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, rulings by the Court of Session, annual reports from the president of the Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland, stakeholders' views and informed observations in light of practice. Most important, the proposals in the bill will strengthen the rights of children with additional support needs and those of their parents.
Does the minister acknowledge that one reason why the Government has been comprehensively defeated on many issues this afternoon is that it simply failed to talk to the organisations and parents who wanted a much more fundamental review of the legislation?
I take issue with Rhona Brankin's description of what happened at stage 3: relatively few amendments were debated this afternoon. Through stages 1 and 2, during which we were in dispute over some issues, a consensus was arrived at across the parties. I suggest that Rhona Brankin examine carefully the outcome of the bill. The Government certainly took a number of positions that were voted against this afternoon, but the Parliament properly addressed the core issues.
Will the minister give way?
No, I will not.
During stage 1, I warmly welcomed the committee's broad support for the amendments to the 2004 act. Indeed, I am grateful for its support for the general principles of the bill and its recommendation to the Parliament that they be approved.
Also during stage 1, stakeholders and committee members suggested a number of additional amendments. I considered those suggestions carefully and, in light of my considerations, lodged at stage 2 a number of Government amendments that further strengthened the 2004 act. Again, I extend my thanks to the committee members for supporting me and agreeing to them—and, indeed, to a good number of the Government amendments that were debated this afternoon. I was also more than happy to lend my support to amendments lodged by Elizabeth Smith and Ken Macintosh at stage 2 and, indeed, by Margaret Smith and Ken Macintosh at stage 3.
I have made it clear from the outset that we did not intend to make any significant differences to the overall ethos of the legislation, the scope of the bill or the resource envelope. We wanted to fix some of the deficiencies in how the legislation had been implemented over the past three or four years.
During stage 2, I was disappointed to be accused of being anti-democratic, when members were, or ought to have been, well aware of the situation with regards to the status of financial resolutions and how amendments are dealt with. I appreciate that it was perhaps the first time that such a situation had happened and that we were perhaps taken a little unawares, but there was no attempt to subvert debate. I think that we have all learned lessons during the bill's passage.
I highlight, too, that, in addition to all the amendments in the bill, the code of practice will be amended in due course, having been consulted on and laid before the Parliament.
I am afraid that the minister must sum up now.
Okay. As members will know, the purpose of this debate is to seek parliamentary approval that the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill be passed. I hope that everyone in the chamber has had the opportunity to debate the bill fully and that they will support it at the end of the day.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I thank those who were involved in consideration of the bill, as surreal as it was at times. On behalf of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, I thank the committee clerks, who worked hard to assist committee members in what were often stressful circumstances. I thank, too, members of the Scottish Parliament information centre, who provided committee members with a high standard of background material and assistance during efforts to cost amendments. I thank members of the bill team and the minister for the evidence that they provided. Finally, I thank those who gave evidence to the committee, particularly those groups who advocated strongly on behalf of children, young people and parents.
Having spoken as the committee convener, I now intend to speak about my personal reflections on the process of considering the bill. Although there is much in the bill to be welcomed, I must mention the unique position in which we, as members of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, found ourselves during stage 2. In concluding my stage 1 contribution in the chamber only two months ago, I was pleased to be able to say that issues occasionally come before Parliament in which party politics play little part and that this bill was one such issue. That should have remained the case. It is hard to fathom how we reached the position whereby the good will shown by all committee members during stage 1 was fractured to such an extent that some members felt obliged to ask for the process to be referred to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.
The effective exclusion of amendments as a result of the Government's failure to introduce a financial resolution created a feeling that debate was being closed down rather than opened up. In the current political climate, which affects us all, members of the public need to be assured that their concerns are being listened to and acted on. What they do not want is any sense that parliamentary rules are being used to stifle debate and prevent proper scrutiny of legislation.
Can the member explain why we all agreed at stage 1 to the principles of the bill even though it did not have a financial resolution at the time?
Perhaps the member would like to reflect on her comments at stage 2, when she kept questioning amendments and the bill's scope. She seemed much more intent on stopping the democratic discussion of amendments than on engaging in it.
Concerns were raised by all committee members, with the exception of the Scottish National Party members, who were happy to defend the exclusion of amendments. What were those highly controversial amendments, which were so outlandish and expensive that they had to be thwarted? The minister said today that they did not count and were not important. In fact, they were perfectly reasonable amendments that organisations sought in order to increase access to the provisions of the 2004 act, provide a right to support and advocacy, and introduce a duty to provide information. That is hardly earth-shattering stuff, but they are exactly the kind of measures that parents and advocacy groups have been calling for.
In seeking to exclude those amendments through the technical process of not introducing a financial resolution, the Government and SNP members showed a willingness to circumvent the spirit of parliamentary democracy. I do not believe that the public, in particular those with an interest in the bill—
The member must wind up.
I do not believe that the public will have been impressed by this Government's shenanigans. Although the bill is worthy of support, it could have been so much better.
Let me say at the outset that the Scottish Conservatives fully support the principles of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill, not least because its ethos is designed to ensure that adequate and relevant support is provided to all children, no matter what their specific learning needs are. It is vital that we get the process right and take every step possible to address some of the loopholes that exist in the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004.
There has been no disagreement that we need to ensure that each child with ASN receives the appropriate help in an efficient and timely manner and that that support must extend to the home and local community as well as to the teaching environment. It was good to hear the assurance that the Minister for Children and Early Years gave on that when he expressed his desire to ensure that support is both holistic and fully co-ordinated across social, health and education services.
Specialist care means the provision of specialist services, which in turn means that we must recognise the importance of the out-of-area placing requests that are made when, for one reason or another, a local authority is unable to deliver the appropriate support. The bill will be important in improving access to such services, extending equality of opportunity and of treatment before the law, and recognising the respective responsibilities of parents, of the host and home local authorities and of support carers.
Throughout the parliamentary process, we on the Conservative benches have fully supported the Government and other parties in their intentions behind the bill: to reduce the complexity of the legislation; to speed up the decision-making process; to ensure that the various parties are fully aware of their rights and responsibilities; to provide better mediation and advocacy; to provide better transition after school; and to do much more to support the vulnerable and most excluded children.
I believe that we needed to focus on two things. First, we needed to make the legislation as watertight as possible by reducing the loopholes in the existing act. Secondly, we needed to ensure that the bill could be complemented by reducing the wide variation in local authority interpretation of the code of practice. That second obligation was just as important as the first, in particular because we needed to reduce the scope for buck passing and to address the perverse financial incentives that sometimes lead to the wrong decisions.
Having listened carefully to the extensive range of evidence that the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee considered, I am in no doubt that professionals and experts in the field felt a considerable degree of frustration. They felt let down because the existing legislation does not provide them with the necessary support to deliver the best services to families whose children have additional support needs.
In particular, I am mindful of the need to identify additional support needs at the earliest opportunity and to ensure that the relevant support is given from day one. As well as the educational, health and social benefits of doing so, huge costs could be saved in the long run through a reduction in the number of cases in which families find themselves in difficult and adversarial circumstances. That was one of our principal concerns in dealing with the bill.
We have worked hard to improve the provisions on representation and advocacy and on the workings of the tribunal process. We have also worked hard to clarify the responsibilities and duties of local authority education departments because we wanted to reduce the scope for buck passing that has enabled some local authorities to hide behind the complexities of the existing legislation.
If there is a proper, graduated response to the needs of the child in the first instance, if there are proper relationships between parents, school and partnership officer and if there is much greater clarity surrounding the process of what should legally be provided in a support package, the best interests of the child will be promoted through an holistic support mechanism that gives people the best possible chance in the future.
As the convener of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee has just said, the bill should not have become a party-political issue. It could have been better. Indeed, it is deeply regrettable that, during its passage, debates sometimes became so highly charged that they even raised questions about parliamentary procedures.
That aside, the bill is about our commitment to the future of children with additional support needs and the families and carers who support them. That is why the Scottish Conservatives will support the Government in agreeing to the bill.
The Liberal Democrats will support the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill. Throughout the process, people have constantly highlighted the need to ensure that the systems that we put in place actually work throughout the country for children with additional support needs and for their families. All too often, we have heard from parents and others who, time and again, have had to fight, hassle and harry local authorities and health services for the necessary support to ensure that children with additional support needs can enjoy what quality of life they can.
There was an obvious need to strengthen and clarify the ability of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 to deliver on the original policy intention of providing any additional support necessary to help a child or young person to learn. It was needed in the wake of Court of Session judgments and the experience of five years of implementation. It was necessary, too, to simplify the process for the parents who are caught up in it and who, because of all the other stresses and strains on them, need legislation that is understandable and systems that deliver.
I am pleased that, at points along the way, I have managed to lodge amendments on looked-after children, information and data that have secured the support of members of other parties, for which I thank them whole-heartedly.
Although the bill's necessity has never been queried or contested, at times during the consideration process procedures were used to try to divide consensus when such division was unnecessary. I am deeply saddened and frustrated by the process that we all had to encounter. I have had the privilege to be a member of this Parliament for 10 years. As someone who, as convener of the Health and Community Care Committee, presided over consideration of the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill, to which I believe that 1,500 amendments were lodged, I consider myself to be fairly experienced in the ways of legislation. I thought that that was the most tortuous passage of a bill that I would ever have the privilege to be involved in, but I was wrong.
The lack of a financial resolution and the Government's refusal to lodge an appropriate motion—unlike the previous Government—have meant that the arguments surrounding the important issues that have been raised with us during the committee stages and through our work as MSPs might not have been put to the test. They have certainly not been put to the vote.
With regard to the member's complaint about the lack of a financial resolution, does she not agree that the bill's purpose is not to extend the scope of the 2004 act or to increase the resources that are applied to address problems in the provision of support for additional needs at school level? Given that we are trying to fix the problems with the implementation of the 2004 act, why would the bill require a financial resolution?
On the bill's policy objectives, the policy memorandum states:
"The Bill is an important step in the work of the Scottish Government to strengthen, as well as clarifying, the ability of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 … to deliver its original policy intention, that intention being to provide for any need that requires additional support for the child or young person to learn."
That is an overarching requirement. Once they had listened to evidence, committee members sought to respond by following the practices to which the Parliament has adhered for the past decade. It is normal in the Parliament for members to take on board concerns that have been raised with us, to lodge amendments and to seek assurances from the relevant minister.
I am pleased that the minister said that we had "all learned lessons" from the process. I have learned several lessons, but there is one big lesson that the minister and the Government must stand ready to learn, which is that the onus is on a minority Government to persuade the majority of MSPs through the strength of its arguments, not to bully them or to push them by resorting to a tactical measure that prevents issues that have been raised with members from being brought before the Parliament.
The member should conclude.
It has been an extremely depressing experience for many of us. Any sense of achievement that we might feel at improvements that we have made as a result of the amendment process is tinged with a deep sense of regret at the manner in which the Government has conducted itself during the passage of the bill.
As we reach the final stage of the bill's consideration, it is fair to say that it has been through the legislative wringer to a greater extent than some of us might have expected at the outset. That is not necessarily a bad thing, as the Parliament was designed to ensure rigorous scrutiny and debate. In a Parliament of minorities, it is important that all sides of the argument are heard. However, now that we have reached the final stage of the bill's consideration, I hope that the Parliament can come to a consensus about the best way to ensure that some of Scotland's most vulnerable children and families get the support and advice that they need.
As a member of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee—the lead committee for scrutiny of the bill—I had a degree of sympathy with the policy direction of some of my committee colleagues. We might not all have agreed about how best to use the bill to travel in that direction, but it was clear to me that we had to be sure that its implementation would focus on ending the many problems that were raised in the evidence that we took, which was highly compelling.
As I said in my speech in the stage 1 debate—a debate that was notable for the degree of cross-party consensus—witnesses told us that the 2004 act does not always meet the needs of the parents, families and children who are in desperate need of support. I was aware from my constituency casework of the difficulties that parents faced when trying to do the best for their child with additional needs. Unfortunately, much of the evidence we heard did nothing other than to confirm what many of us have experienced in our casework. The committee heard about parents struggling to get the help that they needed, about cases dragging on for long periods, and about parents being pitted against teams of lawyers representing the council.
Those examples were of children lucky enough to have parents to care for them. We heard about the plight of looked-after children, Gypsy Traveller children and children with parents in the forces. It was clear that, despite the good intentions of the 2004 act, changes needed to be made.
In response, the Government was clear that it was committed to improving the quality of life and support available to those with additional support needs and those who care for them. It was also clear about the financial implications of the bill. Parents of children with additional support needs would be given extra protections when making placing requests, the tribunal system would be extended, and mediation and dispute resolution responsibilities would move to the authority responsible for education rather than the home authority.
Through the course of the committee's deliberations, the minister made it clear that he was committed to a suite of initiatives that would complement the bill. The Government wants to ensure that adequate levels of information are provided for parents and that looked-after children are not hindered or held back. The minister told us that he was actively working with the parents of disabled children to listen to their views and experiences at first hand and that he was committed to looking to help young carers, among a plethora of other measures. That clearly illustrated the SNP Administration's desire literally to get it right for every child.
We all have the opportunity now to ensure that we, too, do our best to get it right for every child and get the best possible piece of legislation, which is tailored to suit the needs of some of the most vulnerable families and children in Scotland. For that to be achieved, we need to have level heads and to put party politics to the side. It has been regrettable that some members, in their contributions, have sought to change the tone of today's debate.
Now that we have come through the legislative process, the debates and the scrutiny, I am confident that Parliament can unite behind the bill. Once again, I express our commitment to providing the best possible support for Scotland's children with additional needs and their families. I thank the minister for his contribution to the committee's deliberations on the bill.
I thank all those who have contributed to the bill, including, if I may say so, the minister and his team. I thank the clerks to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, the members of the committee and, in particular, the voluntary organisations and parents who gave evidence, including the National Deaf Children's Society, Lorraine Dilworth of Independent Special Education Advice (Scotland) and Iain Nisbet of Govan Law Centre, who put an incredible amount of work into making the bill happen.
I say on their behalf that I am pleased but a little frustrated and disappointed in the outcome—disappointed because I feel that, in the end, the minister took what I would describe as a mean-spirited approach to the bill. Instead of revisiting one of the most important acts of the Scottish Parliament of the past decade, with a view to identifying possible deficiencies or areas that need attention and improvement, we had a bit of a cursory review, and then a bill that is based on the premise that it should impose no additional costs or new obligations on our local authorities. The political imperative not to disturb the concordat appears to have come before the need to agree the committee's reasoned conclusions or to address the needs of families.
All of us know from our constituency casework not only that it is a struggle for parents to ensure that their children's needs are addressed, but that such a struggle often results in an unhealthy dispute between local authorities and families. When we passed the 2004 act, we were fighting to support families' needs, while sympathising with local authorities, given the finite resources with which they operate. However, the minister appears to have taken sides with the local authorities against the families. That is not healthy.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will not, if the minister does not mind. He will get to wind up in a second.
Many of the briefings that the committee received referred to the visionary and aspirational act passed by the Parliament in 2004. Five years on, we should be talking not about aspiration but about the practical and the immediate.
At stage 1, we started off constructively—a novel but welcome experience for the committee. Following the volte-face by ministers, I believe that most of us are left ruing a missed opportunity. I have no doubt whatever that the Parliament will have to return to the issue yet again, although I hope that that will be part of a broader review of additional support for learning.
Has the aspiration behind the 2004 act been compromised by the local authorities' lack of money?
In a word, yes. I believe that, with more money, local authorities could certainly deliver more. The bill will tidy up other matters, although more could have been done.
On the financial resolution and the Presiding Officer's role, I am absolutely convinced that the Presiding Officer had no desire to be caught up in the dispute over the assessment of the costs of particular amendments. In the interests of transparency alone, that potentially recurring problem must be addressed.
I urge the minister and his team to rethink their approach to minority government. We all want minority government to work—although we perhaps do not all want the present Administration to work. After such a promising start to the bill, the way in which relations broke down was not disastrous, but it was pretty bad news. The lack of trust between the minister and the committee was thoroughly unedifying and impractical. I feel slightly sorry for Mr Ingram, because his personal commitment on the issue is well known, so I can imagine only that he was told from above that he would have no money.
On a positive note, the 2004 act has made a difference to many lives, although we can do much more. I hope that the bill makes families' lives and their struggle a little easier and that it makes the decisions that are based on their experience a little fairer.
As my colleague Elizabeth Smith said, the Scottish Conservatives support the principles of the bill and look forward to its being passed at decision time. We recognise that the 2004 act, although important, contains several failings that the Parliament had to address. We must ensure that every child who is in need receives appropriate help. A concern arose about loopholes in the legislation that meant that that was not happening at all times. I hope that the amended legislation will lead to substantial improvements for some of our most vulnerable young people.
I raised several concerns when I spoke in the stage 1 debate on 4 March, so I am pleased that they have largely been addressed during the bill's parliamentary progress. I raised the issue of the adversarial nature of the tribunal process and mentioned that many local authorities employ solicitors and advocates to represent them at tribunals, which puts them at a major advantage over parents, who simply cannot afford that level of representation. I am pleased that amendments have been agreed to that will help to deal with that problem and to level the playing field by ensuring that parents receive more help with advocacy.
The provision of information is another issue on which the bill has been amended. Local authorities will be required to provide parents and young people with the information that they must publish under the 2004 act. The authorities will also have to ensure that a summary of that information is available from schools in the school handbook and on the school or local authority website. Local authorities will be obliged to publish information on dispute resolution procedures. We have had representation on that from local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which are extremely concerned about the cost of implementing some of those plans. I must say that they are overstating the case. Costs might well be attached to making that information available more widely, but it is hard to believe that they will be substantial. The point of making the information available is that it should reduce costs down the line by avoiding a more adversarial approach, which must make sense. I hope that, on reflection, local authorities will come to understand that.
Several other changes have been made to the bill, in relation to how tribunals will deal with placing requests, the definition of additional support and the right for parents to request an assessment at any time from local authorities. Those are all important issues and ones on which the bill has been improved.
I am not a member of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, but I am aware of the difficulties that the bill had during its passage through the committee, and I listened with interest to what the committee convener had to say. I hope that the Government will learn a lesson from the experience when it deals with future bills.
I hope that the new legislation goes a long way towards making life better for young people with additional support needs, who are a group in society for whom we should all have a concern. We will be pleased to support the bill at decision time.
I thank my parliamentary colleagues for what has been, by and large, a constructive debate. This afternoon, we have come to the end of a legislative process that began with a commitment from the First Minister to ensure that the parents of children with additional support needs would be able to make placing requests to schools outwith their local authority areas. The bill puts firmly in place a range of measures to strengthen the rights of the parents of children with additional support needs and of young people with additional support needs.
I thank the members who spoke in the debate. In nature and tone, the debate occasionally became rancorous but, by and large, it was thoughtful and constructive. There has been a degree of consensus in our deliberations. I am glad that, from the beginning, there was widespread support across the parties and across the chamber for the general principles of the bill. Indeed, the bill has moved on considerably since its introduction to Parliament and a good number of amendments have been agreed to throughout its parliamentary journey. Some amendments were lodged by the Government at the behest of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, and some that were lodged by individual committee members got the agreement of the Government. That puts the narrative of the debate in perspective.
As might have been expected, there have been disagreements. However, I hope that it is accepted that there has been a genuine effort to address many of the concerns that have been raised both today and at stage 2 through the amendments that I lodged and the Opposition amendments that I supported. Nevertheless, I appreciate that some issues remain that it was either not possible or not appropriate to deal with through primary legislation. Many of those issues will be dealt with through secondary legislation or through revision of the code of practice. A dialogue with stakeholders has already begun that will be essential in informing that process.
The debate has been about seeking parliamentary agreement to the motion that the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill be passed. The Scottish Government is committed to improving the lives of children with additional support needs. Support for vulnerable children is at the heart of a smarter Scotland. Providing help when it is needed is both the right thing to do and an investment in our future. I believe that the bill provides essential elements that will ensure that our children and young people with additional support needs have the support that they require to enable them to take full advantage of the benefits of school education.
I thank the Parliament and my colleagues on the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee for their invaluable support, input and stimulation during the bill's passage. I also extend my thanks to the wide range of organisations and representative bodies that contributed so constructively to the bill's provisions. We look forward to continued dialogue with those stakeholders when we revise the code of practice and secondary legislation. Last but not least, I put on record my thanks to my bill team, who, more often than not, rose beyond the call of duty in responding to the needs of committee members and myself.
I ask members to endorse the bill this afternoon.