Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Records) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2563, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on the general principles of the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Records) (Scotland) Bill. I invite members who wish to speak to press their request-to-speak buttons. I call Cathy Jamieson to speak to and move the motion and trust that she will continue the precedent that she established of welcoming my former pupils in the public gallery.
I am glad to uphold that precedent with your permission, Presiding Officer. I would not otherwise have dared to say that I am glad to see pupils from Belmont Academy, which is in my constituency. I congratulate them on their work in producing the "Belmont Banner", the school's newspaper, of which I have many copies. All members are welcome to see me later and take one.
The debate is important, so I will take time to outline why we have introduced the bill. As many members know, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will apply from September to all areas of education. The Executive has introduced the bill to complement the DDA and to extend to Scotland duties that are similar to those that the DDA will apply to local education authorities in England and Wales. The bill will also secure parents' independent right to access their children's school records. We need to ensure that every child in Scotland can make the most of educational opportunities, realise his or her full potential and build on his or her talents and skills.
The DDA will make it unlawful throughout Britain for education providers to discriminate against pupils on the ground of disability. I am sure that everyone agrees that that change is welcome. It will mean that schools and education authorities must ensure that disabled pupils are not placed at a substantial disadvantage in relation to other pupils. Schools will need to consider how they can make reasonable adjustments to ensure that pupils can access education and associated services. At the same time as we maintain a focus on individual needs, we can make changes that will benefit many pupils who have disabilities. That is why we need the bill.
By requiring local authorities and independent and grant-aided schools to prepare accessibility strategies, we will encourage them to focus on long-term strategic planning for improvements, to identify priorities in their areas and to promote inclusion. Their accessibility strategies will be intended, over time, to increase for pupils who have disabilities access to the curriculum, the school environment and school information. They will consider the need for changes in all schools, nursery schools and other pre-school education that local authorities provide directly.
The aim is not to start something new or to make changes overnight. Accessibility strategies will ensure that responsible bodies can build on and develop the planning that is in place for educating pupils who have disabilities. For instance, in their improvement plans under the national priorities and in their children's services plans, local authorities are planning for pupils who have disabilities.
The bill complements and supports other legislation and policies for children who have special educational needs. Such children do not necessarily have physical disabilities, but there is a large overlap between the groups. The inclusion programme, through the excellence fund, has provided significant funding to promote inclusion of children who have special educational needs. About 75 per cent of that funding also benefits children who have disabilities.
We want to ensure equality of opportunity for all pupils, especially those who have special educational needs and disabilities. That is a key part of the national priorities. We expect that local authorities' accessibility strategies will form part of their improvement plans. That will ensure that the Executive receives copies of strategies and can monitor how authorities are progressing. It also means that that is not a requirement for yet another plan. Responsible bodies can dovetail their accessibility strategies with the planning they already do, which will avoid duplication.
Many independent schools have experience of including pupils who have disabilities and see that as part of their regular business-planning cycles. We are not asking people to make sudden changes. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 does not expect schools to be able to support children who have the most complex needs. The Executive is clear that, in terms of mainstreaming and as far as it is possible to undertake it, we want to promote the inclusion in mainstream schools of pupils who have disabilities and other additional support needs.
However, we acknowledge that there are still many children who have complex needs, but in whose best interests it might not be to place them in a mainstream school. Those children will continue to be educated in special schools, which can offer them the high level of support that they need. In determining where a child should be placed, the views of the parents and the child should be taken into account to a large extent.
However, I believe that the great majority of children who have disabilities should be able to benefit from education in a mainstream school—in the local authority or the private sector, as is available at present—if they wish to do so. They should, wherever possible, be able to follow the same curriculum as their peers. They should be able to access the whole school and all its activities. They should also be able to learn using information that is provided for them in a format that is suitable for their needs.
We also acknowledge that supporting children who have an increasingly wide range of needs is a challenge for schools. That is why planning is so important. For inclusion to be successful, we must plan to remove from schools and nursery schools throughout Scotland the barriers to participation. Some of those barriers might be physical, but some are attitudinal.
Much good practice exists. Many schools are already successful in promoting inclusion. The Executive continues to encourage that by providing finance for staff training through the special educational needs specific grant and through other funding to support inclusion. We want accessibility strategies to enable local authorities and schools to identify what further improvements are needed and to plan to carry out those improvements.
Of course local authorities and schools will continue to have flexibility in developing their own approaches. They all start from different base points and all have different pupil populations and challenges to face. That means that their priorities will be different. It is not appropriate for the bill to prescribe exactly what must be done and when. The responsible bodies should work that out through consultation. They should consult closely those who might be affected by the strategy and those who have relevant expertise, including colleagues, school staff, pupils, parents, health professionals, social workers, voluntary organisations and others.
Accessibility is an area that is constantly developing and changing. It might be hard for some of us to imagine a time when every school in Scotland will be completely accessible to all pupils. Much as we would like that to be the case, there will always be room for improvement. Nonetheless, we hope that the bill will stimulate continual improvements over time.
It might take many years for all schools to become fully accessible to pupils who have physical disabilities, but other changes can be expected to happen more quickly. Although significant resources will be made available to local authorities in grant-aided expenditure and in ring-fenced funds such as the inclusion programme, we recognise that that will not be enough to do everything that local authorities would like to do in the first three-year period.
However, in consulting on and developing strategies, responsible bodies will find that there are many changes that they can make quickly. Some of those might be in the delivery of on-going programmes. For example, some local authorities have strategies for rolling out training to school staff on issues such as supporting children who have autistic spectrum disorders. Some might be working with other agencies to promote awareness about disability and diversity to school pupils. Others might have negotiated contracts with specialist providers to allow information to be made available to pupils in a range of alternative formats. Clearly, such initiatives can benefit a wide range of people, not just school pupils and staff. I stress again that the bill is not just about buildings and physical access, but about providing a range of resources.
Some MSPs have expressed concerns about how we will ensure that the bill is effective and about how it will be publicised and monitored. In addition to consulting widely, responsible bodies will be encouraged to be proactive in promoting their strategies once they are in place. They might wish to provide a summary to interested parties, such as school staff, parents and pupils, or they might ask head teachers to make parents, staff and pupils aware of how the strategy will lead to improvements in their school.
Responsible bodies will also have to make copies of their strategy available to anyone who requests it. Many members will be pleased to hear that my colleague Nicol Stephen proposes to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to make it clear that strategies must also be made available in alternative formats if people request them.
Although I do not have much more time, I want to comment briefly on the monitoring role. I assure the Parliament that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education and the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care will be involved in that process. Furthermore, the Executive will ensure that it receives copies of accessibility strategies to find out whether progress is being made and to identify areas that need further improvements.
Finally, we must not forget that the bill has another important purpose. Until March 2000, parents in Scotland had an independent right to access their children's school records. However, that right was unintentionally removed when the Data Protection Act 1998 came into force in March 2000.
We want to take the opportunity in the second part of the bill to create the necessary powers that will enable us to reinstate that right. In doing so, we want to ensure that, where appropriate, children's rights to confidentiality will be protected. In general, parents should be able to access information about their children that is held by schools and education authorities.
As a result, I am fully committed to the bill and the provision that it will make in two separate areas of access in education. I welcome today's debate and am sure that the Parliament will vote to accept the bill's general principles.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Records) (Scotland) Bill.
The SNP warmly welcomes the use of primary legislation to introduce education accessibility strategies, and fully supports the bill's general principles. However, there was general agreement within and outwith the Education, Culture and Sport Committee that, in order to provide a really robust process, the bill must be strengthened in certain areas. I want to highlight a few issues that need to be addressed.
Most important, we want to know how we will ensure that the strategies increase accessibility. Under the bill, responsible bodies could take a minimalist approach, but there is no point in introducing legislation if it can be largely ignored. As the minister said, monitoring and evaluation are crucial and there is a feeling that they should not be left to supplementary guidance, but require an amendment to the bill. Such an amendment might usefully clarify the priority that HMIE will place on inspecting strategies and their implementation and its role in that process, and might also include a requirement for accessibility strategies to be sent as a matter of routine to HMIE and the Scottish Executive.
There is an equally important question about what a child, young person or parent can do if duties are not being discharged. Because the bill makes no specific provision for complaint or redress, it requires amendment that will allow families the means to pursue that course of action with some expectation of satisfaction.
During evidence-taking meetings, the question was flagged up of how children, young people and their parents will know about the strategies. I note that the minister is not minded to require responsible bodies to publish their accessibility strategies and, in fact, the bill requires local authorities only to be reactive to requests to inspect the strategies. However, evidence to the committee suggested strongly that a proactive approach to dissemination should be considered, and I acknowledge the minister's comments on that point. I would like her to consider how we might take such an approach, as it would parallel the requirements in the Standards in Scotland's Schools Act 2000 and could easily be achieved through existing requirements on local authorities to produce summary plans.
There was also an issue about how those plans would connect with other planning requirements. Incorporation of accessibility strategies with existing plans would be very much in line with joined-up government and joined-up policy and practice. I hope that the guidance will make a clear recommendation that local authorities and schools should link their accessibility strategies to their existing requirements to provide annual statements of improvement objectives and school development plans, both of which must already address equal opportunities requirements. It would also seem sensible, in the interests of integration, for those strategies to fit with children's services plans. All of that would in consequence help the monitoring and evaluation role that I highlighted.
Many local authorities expressed concerns about their role in supporting pre-school provision with partner providers, and the difficulties of meeting the costs of adapting their properties to the required standards. That was particularly the case where voluntary and private sector businesses were involved. In his oral evidence to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, the deputy minister stated that private and voluntary sector providers of pre-school education that operate in partnership would not be required to prepare accessibility strategies because they are defined as service providers and are therefore subject to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
However, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the committee were concerned that some implications of the bill might discourage local authorities from partnership with multiple small providers, and that they might in some way make it difficult for the private and voluntary sectors to continue to make provision, with the knock-on effect that there would be a lack of choice for families. That would be in no one's interests and I am sure that that is not the intention behind the bill. However, I trust that the minister's interpretation is correct and that there is no loophole that would lead to any reduction in pre-school provision—particularly on a partnership basis, which is very important—especially in rural areas.
The SNP urges support for the general principles of the bill and encourages the minister to note the concerns that were expressed by me and by others, and to note the suggestions that have been offered. That would ensure a meaningful, robust and useful addition to disability legislation, which will be of real benefit to a number of children throughout Scotland.
On behalf of the Conservatives, I am pleased to welcome the bill. We welcome it because it aims to improve access to school education for pupils who have disabilities and restores the right of parents to access their children's records. Those are both laudable aims. However, during early consideration we raised a number of issues that might be dealt with at the next stage by amendment, or might be considered by the Scottish Executive as being appropriate for guidance subsequent to the bill's enactment.
When the Education, Culture and Sport Committee took evidence, a concern that came up time and again was the question of resources. That has been touched on and I suspect that it will be mentioned continually throughout every stage of the bill's passage. Resources cannot be dealt with legislatively, but it is crucial that the issue is considered when planning for the act's application. I need only point to the application of the McCrone pay settlement and how there is now great concern being expressed by local authorities and other groups that the financial implications were not adequately thought through. Many groups, such as mature teacher-training entrants, music instructors, education advisers, educational psychologists and rural local authorities signalled that there could be problems. If we do not consider that while debating the impact of the bill—how it will be applied in regard to resources—I will be concerned that the good intention of the bill, which I have no doubt will be supported throughout the chamber, will not be met. We must listen to the points that have been made by the people who write to us and lobby us. My colleague Murdo Fraser will pick up some points on certain aspects of the bill in regard to disabilities.
I turn to pupils' records. The right of parents to access their children's records came about through Alex Fletcher's Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and the consequent School Pupil Records (Scotland) Regulations 1990. Unfortunately, as the minister said, the Data Protection Act 1998, which covers paper records, removed that right. It is notable that that issue was addressed in 2000 in the House of Commons, but we are progressing the issue two years later. I am pleased that the issue is at last being dealt with, but it is to be regretted that it has taken so long, because evidence shows that having lost the right of access to pupils' records, parents began to encounter difficulty from local authorities in accessing the records. Local authorities would say that the right was lost and that they no longer had the duty to provide the information. Given that local authorities had been giving information that was requested by parents, it is highly regrettable that the authorities subsequently fell back on a bureaucratic attitude and decided that they should withhold that information.
On pupils' records, which form a minor part of the bill, there are two key issues. One issue is confidentiality, which is important, and the other issue is to do with correcting yet another drafting mistake, of which there have been far too many. However, if Mr Monteith has evidence about local authorities that are refusing to give information, even during this interregnum, will he name them so that we can consider why they are doing that?
Certainly. I have no difficulty in saying that the authority in question was Fife Council. I do not want to go into more detail, because the matter is currently under consideration. However, I flag up the issue as one that bears further investigation. If that practice is found to be taking place in a number of authorities, rather than its being possibly only one case—which might be an isolated case within a local authority, rather than its being that authority's policy—we must frown upon that and draw it to people's attention.
We welcome the changes in greater access for pupils who have disabilities and in record of needs provision, but we think that they are overdue. We are pleased to support the bill.
The motion is easy to support. I cannot imagine that anyone would disagree with the bill's general principles, which seek to ensure that responsible authorities will produce and implement strategies to improve access to school education for pupils who have disabilities. The bill also makes provision for parents' access to their children's school records.
The provision about parents' access to records is uncontroversial. Brian Monteith introduced important evidence about that provision. There was no adverse comment during the consultation period and we support that provision without further comment.
The establishment of accessibility strategies is a more significant provision that should make a substantial difference to educational opportunities for pupils in Scotland who suffer from a wide range of disabilities and whose needs require more systematic and effective consideration than has previously been the case.
The minister outlined the requirements for strategies to improve the physical environments of the schools, the communication of information to pupils and their parents, and—which is important—not only physical access to schools, but access to the school curriculum. Those provisions also extend in various regards to children who are under school age.
As I said, no one would quarrel with the bill's principles. However, in the course of taking evidence, issues arose around those principles' implementation in practice. First, there is a genuine problem about financing of the bill's implementation. There is undoubtedly concern that the physical adaptation of school buildings and the additional human resources that will be required for the bill's implementation will be extraordinarily difficult to quantify and therefore difficult for the Executive and responsible bodies to resource.
The implementation of the strategies, for example, will involve substantial professional development in teacher training and giving disabled children access to the curriculum, and it will require facilities for health support services and so on inside schools.
In passing, I point to the particular problems of local authorities that have large numbers of small rural schools that serve discrete and sometimes isolated communities. Those authorities' cumulative total of adaptation costs is potentially substantial and they do not always have the critical mass that can draw together support.
Mr Jenkins made a valid point about small rural schools. Some authorities might regard those rural schools as too expensive to continue in operation if the authorities cannot meet the bill's requirements. We must consider that matter.
There is also the issue of the large cost of adaptations for particular children. For example, if an old primary school—even one that has many pupils—needs a lift, that can sometimes be an enormous cost and can lead to a need to change the building. Consideration of that issue should make us realise that money is at the root of the issue.
I agree.
In the long term, we do ourselves no favours if we gloss over those genuine concerns because they relate to complicated and sensitive issues that relate to the lives of individual pupils and families. We must be wary of raising expectations, only to frustrate the legitimate ambitions of young people. That is why monitoring of the strategies is important. HMIE and the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care will play an important role in that.
We have also addressed representations that the bill is unclear about how differences would be resolved in the event of parental or pupil dissatisfaction with a strategy or its implementation. We have heard that the bill would be improved by the inclusion of some appeals or mediation process. I hope that that can be examined later.
Criticism has been made of the lack of a time scale for implementation of the bill's provisions and the strategies that are produced. Again, we must strike a balance between idealism and realism. I welcome the open and realistic tone of the minister's remarks. We must recognise that the aspirations of the bill cannot be achieved overnight or in the short term. We must also seek to ensure that accessibility strategies are not nebulous documents that express vague commitments. It is important that they are working documents that move matters forward with a properly monitored, structured, progressive and achievable programme.
We are happy to endorse with enthusiasm the principles of the bill. It is an important bill that seeks to improve the lives of our children. In the long run, however, the bill's success will be judged on how we put those principles into practice.
My colleagues in the Labour party and I have long held the belief that education is the key to unlocking opportunity in later life. It is not the privilege of the few but a fundamental and basic right for all our children and young people. Access to schools and to the school curriculum is critical if disabled children and young people are to be helped to reach their full potential.
The bill brings all those key principles together. It builds on the recommendations of the disability rights task force and at long last rectifies the glaring omission in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which specifically exempted education from its provisions.
The central element of the bill is the duty it places on all education authorities, grant-aided schools and independent schools to produce and implement an accessibility strategy. Such strategies are to do with improving access for all disabled pupils not only to the school building but, of equal importance, to the school curriculum. We need to remember that, for many children with a learning disability or a sensory impairment, accessibility does not stop at the provision of physical access. Indeed, during the consultation at stage 1, concerns were expressed by the committee that using terms such as "in writing" might be too narrowly interpreted and would exclude alternative formats such as Braille. I am therefore particularly pleased and reassured by the minister's response that an amendment will be lodged by the Executive at stage 2 to ensure that the bill will be truly inclusive and that the possibility of any misinterpretation will be avoided.
If we are to achieve the step change that we want in the experience of disabled children in their school years, it is essential that we have in place a robust mechanism of monitoring and evaluation. Accessibility strategies will only ever be as good as their implementation. We need to ensure that they are living, breathing documents rather than ones that simply gather dust on a shelf. One way to do that is to make an explicit linkage with schools' objectives for improvement and development plans and children's services plans. With HMIE routinely evaluating the quality of strategies and monitoring their implementation, I believe that we will see a difference. I ask ministers to consider that again before stage 2.
Another issue that I ask ministers to reflect on before stage 2 is the view that we need some form of appeals mechanism when an accessibility strategy fails to meet somebody's expectations or fails to address reasonable needs. I hasten to say that I am not attracted to a cumbersome and overly bureaucratic system, but I ask ministers to consider independent mediation, which has been used successfully in other areas and provides a swift and effective response in the interests of the child.
In conclusion, the principles of the bill have been warmly welcomed by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and by a variety of statutory and voluntary organisations that have experience and interest in the sector. Much more important, the bill will be welcomed by parents and children as a critical step in ensuring equality in education. It provides the opportunity to help to unlock the potential in every child, irrespective of ability.
I advise members that the prospect is that we may require to bring forward decision time and members' business today. I say that also for the benefit of business managers and people within the Parliament complex who may be watching on television.
I will continue the consensus by warmly welcoming the bill. However, it is important that what the bill can achieve is kept in context.
As Jackie Baillie said, we should all cherish the right for any child to have education. Sadly, over the years, many disabled children who have sought to go to their local primary or secondary school have found themselves left at the school gate as the school was not suitable for them because of their disability. Anything that seeks to end such discrimination against young people is welcome.
I will refer to a couple of sections of the bill that require clarification. Section 1(2)(b) refers to "associated services". It appears that that term is a reference to extra-curricular activities that take place within the school campus. It is important to keep in mind that schools can undertake extra-curricular activities outwith the school campus, such as going to a museum. I am aware that museums and other service providers are covered by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and that it is difficult for the minister to address the issue. However, we may need to put something in guidance alongside the bill to ensure that when the section is being interpreted it is clear that extra-curricular activities outwith the school campus are also to be considered; when the children go to the museum or elsewhere, a child who has a disability should not be left behind because of a lack of suitable disabled facilities.
Like Jackie Baillie, I welcome the fact that the minister is seeking at stage 2 to lodge an amendment to section 1(3) on alternative formats for the provision of accessibility strategies.
Section 4 makes provision for obtaining records and for those who are providing the records to supply copies and
"to charge such fees as they think fit"
although it adds in brackets
"(not exceeding the cost of supply)".
The Justice 1 Committee has been debating a similar issue in relation to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill. Concern has been expressed that it may be much more costly to obtain such records in an alternative format than it would be to get a photocopy of the records. It is essential that disabled people are not put off requesting the records in an alternative format. The minister might want to reflect on the issue and consult her colleagues who are dealing with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill, because we are anxious to ensure that a charging mechanism that is introduced under that legislation also meets the needs of disabled people and does not discriminate against them in terms of cost.
I will mention a couple of wider issues. I welcome the fact that the bill deals with access to school buildings and the curriculum. Only yesterday, the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, Mary Mulligan, and I met an organisation called Playback, which works with young people who require equipment to access facilities such as schools. It is all very well for schools to have disabled access provisions and to talk about access to the curriculum, but many young disabled people cannot get the wheelchair that they require to go to school. As an example, Playback mentioned a young girl who had to wait for more than a year to get the right wheelchair to go to school.
If we are to make school buildings and the curriculum accessible, we must ensure that service providers such as the national health service meet the needs of young disabled people by providing them with equipment that will allow them to use the facilities that the bill will make available.
I want to refer to the continuing problem that a number of local authorities experience in relation to children with special educational needs who are in facilities that are outwith their area. Local authorities cannot accommodate all children in their area. During a recent briefing by Falkirk Council, which a colleague attended, the director of education highlighted the fact that the cost of placing young people with special educational needs outwith the local authority area has increased by 50 per cent in the past year. That trend puts considerable pressure on local authorities that are trying to meet the needs of disabled people who require special educational establishments.
Although I welcome the bill, we must ensure that there is proper joined-up thinking and working in Government departments to ensure that there is a proper package for disabled children, irrespective of which school they attend or which local authority area the school is in. I hope that the minister will take this opportunity to ensure that there is a proper strategy for disabled children, not one that covers only the curriculum and school buildings.
I welcome the bill. Although, considered in isolation, it addresses only one aspect of educational need, it should be seen as one plank in a raft of measures that are designed to improve equality of opportunity in schools. The bill complements the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and stands alongside the presumption of mainstream education that is in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 and the work that is under way to revise and reform our record of needs system.
The immediate benefits of the bill should not be underestimated. I want to consider the bill's impact on the needs of one community—dyslexic pupils. Dyslexia is often referred to as a hidden or invisible condition, but it is nonetheless disabling. I had the pleasure of meeting a dyslexia support group in my constituency and of listening to a young man who spoke eloquently of his school experience. What that obviously bright and able pupil said challenged my preconceptions of how special educational needs are addressed in schools.
I had always thought that primary schools were better than secondary schools at offering a mainstream education to pupils with special needs. Certainly, I believe that in some ways primary schools offer a more inclusive and less disjointed educational environment to their pupils than larger and more regimented high schools, but the experience of the pupil whom I met contradicted my belief. Despite his abilities, he found himself behind his peers at reading, writing and spelling, which he found intensely frustrating. With other dyslexic pupils, such frustration often finds its outlet in disruptive behaviour, but in his case it led to low self-esteem, a lack of self-confidence and a miserable school life. When he moved to secondary school, his needs were recognised and, because teachers no longer picked him up constantly about his spelling, he flourished and excelled at his studies.
To address effectively the type of problem that that pupil faced, the importance of early diagnosis and assessment of need cannot be underestimated. Those measures must be backed up by the implementation of effective support. Most dyslexic pupils do not benefit from a record of needs, but I hope that the Executive's warmly welcomed consultation on that subject will tackle that gap.
The bill will address many of the difficulties and frustrations that are felt by dyslexic young people and their families in dealing with schools and education authorities. The bill will address both the powerlessness experienced by those families and the lack of information that is available to them. I welcome the minister's opening speech, which explicitly stated that the bill's provisions are not limited to children with physical disabilities. However, I ask the minister to confirm that the definition of disability that is used in the bill—
"a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on"
a person's
"ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities"—
will apply to children with dyslexia. It is my understanding that it will and that the bill therefore gives pupils and parents a new power and a new method by which to demand equal treatment at school.
Furthermore, the emphasis on local authorities consulting pupils and families when they draw up their disability strategies provides an avenue through which awareness of the needs of dyslexic pupils can be raised. The details concerning the way in which parents will be involved and the complaints or appeals procedure to underpin those rights and responsibilities will have to be spelled out in more detail at stage 2. Nonetheless, those developments are very welcome.
Although the bill is important in its own right, it must be supported by other measures and not just by legislation. Training for teachers of young people with dyslexia and many other pupils with special needs who want to enjoy a mainstream education is a priority. The need for teacher training was highlighted by one of the two parents who responded to the consultation on the bill, and that chimes with my own experience.
I hope that the bill will mark a further step towards achieving our aim of increasing accessibility to our school system. It should help young people with a range of needs to develop to their full potential, enriching both their lives and the lives of those around them. I support the general principles of the bill.
The Equal Opportunities Committee considered the bill and contributed to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's stage 1 report. In an open letter to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People addressed several crucial issues in advance of the debate. I am sure that members found that very useful.
The Equal Opportunities Committee especially welcomes the commitment to include portable buildings—often referred to as Portakabins—in the accessibility provisions of the bill. We had intended to lodge a committee amendment at stage 2 because we felt that the failure to include portable buildings would discriminate against Gypsy Traveller children, who are already excluded from education, as we pointed out in an earlier report. It would also discriminate against children in the settled community, as some schools have portable buildings in use on their grounds for many years We welcome the commitment to cover those buildings in the accessibility provisions.
We also welcome the move towards Executive guidance on accessible formats and the statement that "in writing" automatically encompasses provision in Braille, large print and other accessible formats. In evidence to the Equal Opportunities Committee, the Royal National Institute for the Blind offered to advise schools and authorities on the best ways in which to provide materials in preferred formats. I hope that the Executive will bear that offer in mind. I also hope that the Executive's guidance is the first step towards a coherent strategy for accessible formats for the public sector in Scotland and something that will be automatically adopted in future legislation. We have had to amend recent legislation because that issue was not taken into account.
Nonetheless, there are some issues that I feel have not been addressed today or in the letter from the deputy minister and I would be grateful if he could address them in summing up. In section 3(1)(b), the consultation criterion remains "as they think fit". The Equal Opportunities Committee felt that that should be deleted from the bill and that the Executive should set a minimum standard for adequate consultation. I would welcome the minister's comments on that in his summing up.
I ask the minister—as Jackie Baillie did—to address the concern that it is not clear how the Executive will ensure that responsible bodies will be pursued if they fail to develop and implement appropriate strategies. I also ask him to say why there seems to be no support from the Executive for a simplified appeals system to deal with both special educational needs and disabilities.
Finally, will the minister inform us of the Executive's intention to change current guidance on quality indicators in "How good is our school?" in the light of the bill, because changes will obviously have to be made?
I hope that I do not sound too negative about the bill, because I think that the Executive has gone a long way to addressing the concerns that the Equal Opportunities Committee and many organisations that campaign for rights for disabled children in Scotland raised. My comments are in no way meant to deflect from the laudable intent of the bill, which the Equal Opportunities Committee warmly welcomes.
Before we go on to wrap-up speeches, I inform members that I anticipate that the debate will finish around 4.40 or 4.45. With the agreement of members, I will then bring decision time forward.
I am filling in for Karen Gillon at short notice, so I ask members to bear with me.
Colleagues from the committee have already identified some of the key issues that we want the ministerial team to address. We welcome the development of legislation that ties up an uneven aspect of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We also acknowledge that pupil records issues need to be addressed. The bill combines two issues that have been missed for a considerable time.
As Irene McGugan said, we would like responses on key issues that the committee identified. We specifically want responses on how we integrate accessibility with the general issue of planning and developing buildings in the first place. That is worth exploring.
The second big concern is how effective the complaints procedure will be, because there might be circumstances in which the parents also suffer from the disability of the children. Again, we should maximise the opportunity for information to be explained and for parents to be involved.
Michael Matheson identified the grey area of associated services and the links that need to be made within social work, health and education services to identify those that are exempt at present and how to bring them broadly within the framework.
There is still concern in the committee about how we proactively disseminate information. Further explanation for stage 2 would be welcome and would satisfy committee members and those who have written to us and to other MSPs about that issue. Children in Scotland has identified other issues that are worth exploring.
The process is continuing. We are having a debate about what we think are accessibility strategies. Such strategies are different from what they would have been two, three or 10 years ago and will be different three, five or 10 years from now. There is a lot of space for identifying how language is used within the framework of the legislation to make it more flexible. Jackie Baillie has had experience in the field and raised the question of how we continue to monitor, review and act on that. That is welcome.
I do not totally agree with Mike Russell and that might come as a shock to him, but we are on much safer ground here—at least this is not a Sewel motion, which we have been animated about in the chamber before. I welcome the fact that we sought legislation because, although the matter could have been addressed by a Sewel motion, it is more appropriately addressed by a bill, given the impact on devolved matters.
We have to have the resources to support the bill, but we also have to change mindsets, which we are continuing to challenge. We can have a spanking new investment, but if we have not consulted the users who experience it, we will not get the maximum benefit from it. We have to ensure that we engage in consultation with those who experience the difficulties—primarily young people.
Kate Maclean made positive contributions. She was as self-effacing as ever, but her contributions were critical and we have to be aware of the issues that matter.
I welcome the fact that Scottish education now has a regulatory power regarding pupil records, because that was missed before. If we pass the bill, people will have a more effective right to access to school records.
I hope that the ministers will take up the broad issues that I have raised and address them at stage 2.
I reiterate Brian Monteith's comment that the Scottish Conservatives welcome the bill.
I will make two brief points on disability strategies, both of which relate to the question of costs. A number of members, including Ian Jenkins, referred to the costs involved in first drawing up and then implementing a strategy and to the burden that those costs would put on education authorities. I trust that the deputy minister will address that question when he winds up. Ian Jenkins also made a good point about the impact that such costs might have on small rural schools.
A related issue is that of the costs for independent schools. I have an interest in independent schools, not because I went to an independent school but because I believe in freedom of choice for parents. In an area such as Perth and Kinross, which falls within the Mid Scotland and Fife region, independent schools are an important part of the local economy. They directly employ around 700 people and indirectly support many other jobs in the community.
The Minister for Education and Young People is aware that I have been in correspondence with her on the subject of the impact of disability strategies on independent schools—in fact, this week she wrote to me on that very topic. Not so long ago, the Labour party had a policy of opposing independent schools, but I trust that we are in a new age and in more enlightened times.
I also want to mention the situation of independent schools that are grant aided, such as specialist schools for the deaf and the blind. Independent schools often find themselves in a difficult economic position. In Perth and Kinross over the past two years, Croftinloan School in Pitlochry has closed and Rannoch School has come under pressure. There is a misconception that independent schools are dripping in wealth. Extra burdens that are put upon them could threaten their future viability.
The briefing from the Scottish Parliament information centre refers to correspondence from the bursar of Fettes College—the alma mater of the Labour Prime Minister—in which concern was expressed about the
"potential financial consequences of adequately resourcing disability access strategies."
The Executive estimates that the cost of drawing up a strategy will be £8,400. In itself, that is not a substantial sum, but it all adds up. The cost of implementing a strategy is of more concern. For example, the costs could be very high for a boarding school.
The bursar of Fettes College referred to the problems associated with listed buildings, which could involve substantial costs. For some listed buildings, such as Fettes College or George Heriot's School, the alterations that would be required to comply with a disability strategy would be extremely expensive, if not impossible to meet. There is concern in the independent school sector about those issues and I ask the deputy minister to respond to them when he winds up the debate.
I conclude by welcoming the bill, which will promote equal access to schools for pupils with disabilities.
I also shall be brief. There is overwhelming unanimity in the chamber about the bill. We are now into discussions about the detail of how the bill will proceed through stages 2 and 3.
I am glad to have the support of Frank McAveety on the issue of Sewel motions. It was quite a relief to have his support, although that was an unusual event. The bill is an example of why Sewel motions should be used sparingly, although the subject matter could have been dealt with through the use of a Sewel motion. By introducing the bill, not only has the Executive given the chamber an opportunity to debate the issues and members an opportunity to lodge amendments, but it has given civic Scotland and individuals an opportunity to make representations and to be heard. That could not have happened if the matter had been dealt with through the use of a Sewel motion. The bill is a good example of legislation that should go through the parliamentary process, although that may take time and effort. The Executive should not deal with such matters by giving away our right to legislate.
Three key issues in the bill have clearly emerged during the debate: demand; will and intention to meet that demand; and resources to underpin the ability to meet that demand. I commend the minister on her speech, much of which I agree with. However, I believe that she underestimates the demand that will exist. By definition, parents of children who have special educational needs are usually very involved in their children's education and acutely aware of the difficulties that their children have.
I suspect that the bill, which will be warmly welcomed, will also mean that parents have very high expectations from early on. Although it will be necessary to phase in the support that is available, let us not alienate parents by doing so in a way that appears to be penny-pinching. I am glad that the detail of the finance indicates that money that is additional to the £9 million is available. There will be significant financial demands on the public purse for schools. Mr Jenkins has indicated some of those.
A considerable amount of work is required to make a building or buildings suitable once a strategy has been produced. I mentioned a lift in a primary school that I know. Many other schools—perhaps those that have old buildings—will require considerable adaptation. I hope that when the deputy minister responds, he will take on board the fact that demand will be considerable.
Teachers and those who run the schools must have the will to make sure that the bill works. By and large, that will is there. The minister was absolutely right to say that mainstreaming cannot be imposed on schools. I was a member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee that undertook a report on special educational needs. Mainstreaming is a hope, an encouragement and a way in which we want people to look at education. However, it cannot be a demand, because children are all different and schools are all different.
Teachers must be helped to understand how mainstreaming works. For some children it will never work; for others it will work very well. We must proselytise for the bill within schools, to persuade teachers to take the chances and make the extra effort that will enable children to go into schools, to mainstream and to have the facilities in those schools that they need.
If we can understand the demand, if we can recognise the need to create the will within schools and if we can provide the resources, the bill will make a huge difference over a period of time.
Unfortunately, the issue of pupil records represents another example of bad drafting somewhere else producing a problem that requires resolution by the Parliament. That has become something of a hobby-horse of mine, and the deputy minister has suffered as a result of that in committee. We must look seriously at drafting. The fact that we can legislate does not mean that we have to do so. When we legislate, we must do it properly.
In the primary legislation that we pass and, increasingly, in Scottish statutory instruments, problems are becoming legion. The case of a statutory instrument that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee recently considered has become almost farcical. We must examine drafting, which is not a party-political issue, but one of good governance. We must have the ability to draft bills properly.
The bill represents an ideal opportunity for the Parliament and its committees—Kate Maclean referred to her committee—to work together for the good of people in Scotland who have a real need. That has been the nature of the debate and I am sure that it will be the nature of the stage 2 proceedings. I ask the Executive to keep it that way. Let us be constructive about the bill and let us not stand on our dignity on the drafting of amendments. I support the bill.
I would like to continue the constructive tone. I agree with Michael Russell's final remarks about the spirit in which the bill has been debated so far. We have already signalled important changes that we intend to bring forward at stage 2. I hope that, as a consequence of following up on some of the remarks that have been made in the debate, we might bring forward further amendments or be prepared to make commitments in relation to guidance or regulations.
I welcome the support of Irene McGugan on behalf of the SNP and of Brian Monteith on behalf of the Conservative party. I also welcome the enthusiastic support of Ian Jenkins. I agree with him and the other speakers who said that the accessibility strategies must be living, working, effective documents that make a difference.
Michael Matheson made a particularly worthwhile contribution. In relation to his comments on associated services and museums, I want to reiterate and develop the points that I made in committee. The phrase "associated services" covers planning for school trips and other activities outside school. However, school trips are normally planned by individual schools and, to comply with the DDA, they should take into account the needs that any individual child may have.
Will the minister give way?
I shall, but let me just finish.
Schools should take reasonable steps to ensure that such children can participate fully in school trips. For example, schools cannot force a museum to be accessible, but as museums are already subject to the DDA, they should be accessible to all those with disabilities.
I am happy to give way now.
Should accessibility strategies always include deaf children who do not attend schools for the deaf?
Yes, of course. To answer Dr Ewing's question, let me say that I was pleased that contributors to the debate—especially Jackie Baillie—stressed that the bill's purpose is to provide children who have physical disabilities not only with access to school buildings but with access to the curriculum. The bill also provides for children who have non-physical disabilities and for the wide range of disabilities that individuals might face in the course of their education. The bill is not only about installing lifts and ramps.
Irene McGugan, Jackie Baillie and Ian Jenkins asked about the power to complain and the power to appeal and about the opportunity for mediation. Parents can complain and will have access to the conciliation and mediation that is provided by the Disability Rights Commission under the DDA. Such mediation is also provided separately under the special educational needs framework, for which the Parliament is responsible. As members will know, we are examining whether we need to review the record of needs and whether there is a need for mediation. The bill's aim is not to set up a new or separate mediation or appeal framework but to ensure that a strategic approach is taken so that schools and authorities have a responsibility to plan for accessibility.
The minister has highlighted the link between the bill and the record of needs legislation, of which he has acknowledged that radical reform is needed. Can he indicate the Executive's time scale for reforming the record of needs legislation?
The short answer is no. I cannot give such an indication today. Announcements on legislative proposals are made as part of the full legislative programme that is announced by the First Minister. However, having conducted the review of the record of needs, we are keen that legislation should be introduced in due course. I am sure that those of us who take a close interest in such matters will continue to press to ensure that that takes place soon.
Kate Maclean remarked on the words "as they think fit", which appear in section 3(1)(b) of the bill. The people who should be consulted have not been listed in the bill because it is difficult to define who those people should be in a way that takes account of all the different circumstances that the bill might cover. In our view, to list those who should be consulted would be to constrain the responsible bodies.
It is intended that guidance will specify which groups should be consulted as a minimum. Under the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, education authorities have a duty to take into account the views of children and young people. However, following on from today's debate, we will examine the issue closely and examine what words need to be in the guidance. We shall try to ensure that the committee is happy with our proposals.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I would be happy to take one final intervention.
I very much appreciate the minister's giving way. Will he clarify what he said a moment ago about the avenues for redress that are available under different statutes? How will that work? How would someone who complains or seeks satisfaction under the terms of this bill obtain redress under the terms of another piece of legislation, such as the special educational needs legislation or the DDA? Is that viable and sensible?
That is an issue that we debate often. All of us are anxious to ensure that there is as much consistency as possible between the disability legislation and the special educational needs legislation. Some may feel that, ideally, the two would be integrated. However, we have a large volume of disability legislation and a significant volume of special educational needs legislation. Different Parliaments are responsible for that legislation and there are complexities even within that. We have seen that today, with the disability legislation that was set by the UK Parliament having to be discussed in the context of the Scottish Parliament.
We all have to work together to make legislative proposals work effectively. As far as we can, we will, in the review of special educational needs legislation, work to ensure that the approach is more seamless. However, there will continue to be different acts of Parliament on these subjects on the statute book.
This bill is about planning for all pupils in Scotland who have a disability—whether it is a physical or a mental impairment and whether they need relatively minor additional support or whether they have complex needs and require 24-hour care. Whatever a person's disability, this bill is of importance to them.
Pupils do not need just to be able to get around their school or nursery school. They need to be able to learn in different ways, to receive extra support from school staff and to be able to use information technology and computers or other alternative formats in order to access information. This bill is about challenging the ways in which education is delivered.
It is very important that we do not forget about attitudes. It does not cost anything—except perhaps people's time—to promote positive attitudes to diversity among staff and pupils. Such changes in culture may take time, but pupils will not benefit from their education if they do not feel welcome in a school, if they are bullied or if they are made to feel like outsiders. Legislation alone will not change that. Many schools and teachers are already doing good work on this and are teaching children about disability as part of the curriculum. However, we have to do more and we have to offer more encouragement. I believe that this Parliament and this bill will play an important role in that.
The mistake that has led to the pupils' records element of the bill has already been referred to. It dates back to the Data Protection Act—of 1998, Mr Russell. I agree that it is unfortunate whenever there is a legislative mistake. We are taking steps to remedy the problem. We all agree that the sooner those steps can be taken the better.
I feel that the chamber is united on this bill. Both parts of the bill are necessary and timely and I ask the Parliament to support it today.