Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill: Financial Resolution
The next item of business is consideration of the financial resolution in respect of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill, agrees to the following expenditure payable out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund, namely–
(a) any expenditure of the Scottish Ministers in consequence of the Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in expenditure payable out of the Fund under any other enactment.—[Peter Peacock.]
I echo the sentiments of most members: we support the aims of the bill. However, the question is whether those aims will be achieved.
The first problem is that the financial memorandum states that the most recent estimate shows that there are 17,315 records of needs, but the Executive estimates that there will be only between 11,200 and 13,700 co-ordinated support plans. The Executive calculates that between 3,600 and 5,000 fewer children will have CSPs than have records of needs. That has huge ramifications, and the difference in the figures has not been explained.
My second point relates to paragraph 162 of the Education Committee report, which states that some parents will be denied "legal recourse". All of us know that no one fights more tenaciously or with more determination than a parent for his or her child. There will almost certainly be judicial review and additional legal costs to those that have been estimated.
My third point relates to the importance of definitions. Fuzzy definitions lead to poor cost estimates. The word "enduring" appears in paragraph 82 of the policy memorandum, but it does not appear in the definitions of additional support needs or co-ordinated support plans that are to be found in section 1(1) and section 2(1) of the bill. If CSPs are to be only for children who have "enduring" additional support needs, how is that category to be assessed? A legal minefield could be created.
I have little time, but I want to say that there are some oddities in the procedure today. In effect, the original financial memorandum has been entirely superseded. We heard a veritable avalanche of references to other budgets today, including a reference to £60 million in the changing children's services fund. References were also made to £12 million, £14 million, £8.4 million and £17 million. How do all those budgets relate to each other and have they been fully thought through? I think not; I suspect not; we all fear not.
The minister said that more money will be needed for CSPs than he estimated but that he will find the money. Might that money have to be found at the cost of other vital expenditure in local authority education departments? If a department overspends in one area, it must find its money from spending in other areas.
The motion is an unusual creature. Not only does it invite us to agree to the financial memorandum in respect of the bill, but it refers to increased funding in any other bill, without saying what that might be. The Parliament has been criticised for signing blank cheques. I call on the Executive to return to the chamber with a fresh financial memorandum. The Executive should think the memorandum through and work it out. If it does not, we might be heading towards scuppering the aims that all of us support.
I have gone through the Finance Committee's report on the financial memorandum and it is obvious to me that it believes that the cost estimates in the financial memorandum are unclear and inaccurate. The only thing that is clear is that the financial memorandum underestimates the costs of the bill.
That view is clearly expressed in paragraph 38 of the Finance Committee's report, which states:
"It is patently obvious that until a Code of Practice has been developed, costs cannot be properly ascertained and there remains the very real possibility that the costs quoted in the Financial Memorandum have been under-estimated, potentially very significantly."
Will the member take an intervention?
Not at the moment.
The Finance Committee highlights the significant additional resources that will be needed to process items such as CSPs, mediation, tribunals and pupil records. With all those new demands, there is a real risk that resources will be diverted to meet administrative requirements. Funds must be used to help children and families and must not be swallowed up by the Executive's desire to regulate. Members will be familiar with the experience of estimating the cost of free personal care and mainstreaming in Scotland's schools, which many members feel was not adequate.
I leave members with these thoughts. The Finance Committee's report states:
"the Committee has not been reassured on key substantive matters and it remains extremely concerned that the Parliament could be asked to approve legislation without being made aware of the full financial implications."
I note what ministers have said about costs, but a great deal more work remains to be done. We look forward to more announcements and clarification from ministers.
We take finance very seriously. In Government, finance has to be taken seriously, which is unlike the case in Opposition—the Opposition promises all sorts of things without having to deliver. We have to deliver, which is why we put a lot of effort into the financial memorandum.
The concerns about finance were first raised by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in evidence that it gave, which, we subsequently discovered, was based on a misinterpretation of a change of wording in the bill, which COSLA thought meant a widening of rights and entitlements when it did not mean that at all. That has been clarified with COSLA. COSLA further misunderstood that any child with multiple or complex and enduring needs, and with social work help, would get a CSP automatically, even if that support was not directed at their learning. We clarified that misunderstanding with COSLA, and it has indicated that it is satisfied with the reassurances that we have given.
I am afraid that in its evidence COSLA brought into play a logical inconsistency, which Fergus Ewing did not pick up on, which is that—as we have debated today—there is a higher hurdle for a CSP than there is for a record of needs, therefore it is not possible to say that more people will be entitled automatically to a CSP than are entitled to a record of needs. COSLA has been significantly reassured by that, and has moved away from the projection that 15 per cent of the school population will require a CSP. Indeed, in its most recent letter to the Education Committee, that figure was not mentioned at all.
The Finance Committee raised the further concern that if the assumptions in the financial memorandum are wrong on CSPs and on the numbers going to tribunals, that will have consequences for the rest of the system and will result in the displacement of cash from one part of the system to another. We set out clearly our assumptions in the financial memorandum, and I stand by them.
Paragraph 215 of the Education Committee's report on the bill requests that the minister itemises those moneys that are meant to support the general duty and produces a revised financial memorandum. What is his response to that?
I will come to that in a second.
We set out our assumptions in the financial memorandum, and I stand by them. However, we gave the Education Committee additional evidence and information that looked at a variety of scenarios where we might just have got it wrong, and worked out the cost if we had got it wrong. We worked out that those costs fall within a reasonable variance of any demand-led budget. I made it clear to the committee that we will find any additional money that is required if the assumptions on the numbers of CSPs and the working of the tribunal are wrong, because we are committed to the policy and we want to push it forward.
I also set out for the Education Committee the other sources of finance that we have talked about that are available generally to improve services in education, which will amount to more than £400 million in a couple of years' time. Increasingly, we will examine how those resources are applied to the additional support sector, as well as to other sectors of education.
There is plenty of new money in education, as we all know, and we want to apply it to the benefit of everybody. Today, I announced a further £12 million, followed by a further £14 million that will continue thereafter, to implement the new system. Parliament can be confident that we have the resources in place to take the policy and the services further. We do not believe that a further financial memorandum is required. All the information is in the public domain and we have had committee scrutiny of that.
I say to Fergus Ewing that I am afraid that the Scottish National Party cannot have it both ways. It cannot say on one hand that we need more, but on the other that more must not come from anywhere—although that may be the economics of the SNP. Fergus Ewing is well known in this Parliament for making fatuous points, and the point that he made is one of the most fatuous that I have heard from him. He also talked about a blank cheque. If anybody knows a blank cheque, it is the SNP.
I commend the financial resolution to Parliament.
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.