Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Records) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 of the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Records) (Scotland) Bill. Members should have a copy of the bill, the marshalled list of amendments and the groupings of amendments.
Section 1—Accessibility strategies
Amendment 1 is in a group on its own.
Amendment 1 is a purely technical amendment to clarify the interpretation of the bill. It does not change the bill's substance or purpose. The amendment clarifies to responsible bodies that any reference in the bill to an accessibility strategy refers not only to the first strategy that is prepared but to any revised versions of the strategy or any subsequent accessibility strategies.
That should also make it clear—if it does not, these words should assist—that subsequent accessibility strategies, which will normally be prepared every three years, should be considered to be new strategies, not simply revised strategies. That will be the case even if the new accessibility strategy carries on a lot of the long-term work that may have started under the previous strategy.
I move amendment 1.
No other member wishes to speak to amendment 1. I take it that the minister does not wish to sum up.
That is correct.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 2 is grouped with amendment 3.
I hope that we have established a pattern for the rest of the afternoon.
We have worked hard to respond to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's views on the bill, and amendments 2 and 3, which amend sections 1 and 2, are revised versions of two amendments that Jackie Baillie lodged at stage 2. The intention was to ensure that responsible bodies not only plan for communications to pupils, but ensure appropriate communications and an appropriate dialogue between pupils and school staff. We did not feel that the wording of Jackie Baillie's stage 2 amendments was quite what was required, and agreed to lodge amendments to reflect their intention, with which I think everybody agreed, at stage 3.
We have slightly altered the original amendments and have approached the problem in a different way. We now have amendments that provide for a wider, more up-front and more general duty to improve communication to and from pupils with disabilities. The amendments come in at the start of sections 1(2)(c) and 2(1)(c) respectively. As before, the duty will be on responsible bodies, which will need to provide information to pupils in alternative forms and improve their provision of information to pupils with disabilities as appropriate.
Amendments 2 and 3 will ensure that responsible bodies, in their accessibility strategies, cover the improvement of all communication with pupils with disabilities. Previously, the bill covered only the provision of written information in alternative forms and communication directly related to teaching within the curriculum.
The amendments will widen the scope of the third duty, to cover all communication with pupils even if that communication does not form part of the curriculum. That will mean that responsible bodies should plan to ensure that their staff and others who may work with pupils can communicate with them, and that the pupils can communicate their views back to staff. That should ensure that the views of all pupils, including those with language and communication difficulties, can be taken into account on issues in which they might have an interest, in relation not only to the school curriculum but to school events or school visits, for example. I hope that the amendments reflect the intention of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.
I move amendment 2.
I welcome very much amendments 2 and 3. They accurately reflect the discussions held during stage 2 by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. Our concern at the time was to ensure that communication is a two-way process—in other words, that it is about not just doing to, but doing with. The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 and the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 recognise that education authorities must have due regard to the views of children or young people on issues that significantly affect them. Amendments 2 and 3 bring the bill very much into line with the spirit and ethos of the foregoing legislation. Therefore, the Parliament should support them.
I take this opportunity to welcome the additional guidance that will be given to ensure that the interpretation of "communication" covers not only written communication, but alternative formats such as Braille and audio tape. I welcome the progress that the two amendments reflect, for which I thank the minister.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Section 2—Accessibility strategies: education of children under school age outwith schools
Amendment 3 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Section 3—Accessibility strategies: procedure
Amendment 4 is in a group on its own. I invite the minister to speak to and move the amendment.
Amendment 4 is a revised version of amendment 14, which Jackie Baillie lodged at stage 2 and which we agreed to work on and to bring back at stage 3. Amendment 4 specifies that responsible bodies should send the Scottish Executive a copy of their accessibility strategies when those strategies are finalised. Copies of the first accessibility strategies that have been prepared by responsible bodies should be received by April 2003. That will allow the Scottish Executive to maintain an overview of accessibility strategies and to consider the progress that has been made on their implementation. It will enable us to identify areas in which further progress needs to be made.
The amendment requires strategies to be sent to the Scottish Executive only, and not also to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, as Jackie Baillie's original amendment proposed. We undertake to provide HMIE with access to the accessibility strategies that are sent to Scottish ministers and the inspectorate will be able to advise the Scottish Executive on them. Indeed, from time to time we intend to take advice from HMIE on accessibility strategies as they develop. HMIE will also examine accessibility strategies during its routine inspections of schools and education authorities. However, it does not require a second copy of every strategy to be sent to it.
Amendment 4 does not mean that responsible bodies will have to send in a copy of their strategy every time that they revise it, as they may find that they need to revise the strategy several times each year. However, new section 4(4)(b) will allow the Executive to request that a responsible body sends in the most up-to-date version of its accessibility strategy if, for example, the Executive receives a complaint about a particular aspect of the strategy or feels that, because of revisions, the strategy has changed so significantly that it is appropriate for the Executive to obtain an up-to-date version. Responsible bodies must send in the next new strategy that they prepare after the three-year period has elapsed.
I move amendment 4.
As I said at stage 2, I consider monitoring to be one of the most important issues before us. I welcome the very positive attitude that the Executive has taken by lodging amendment 4. I am in no doubt that the effectiveness of any policy or piece of legislation is dependent on the effectiveness of the monitoring framework that is in place. It is important that we have—for want of a better phrase—a way of knowing that strategies are working on the ground.
I am pleased that the Executive will monitor the strategies and the progress that is made. I am also pleased that the minister has confirmed that HMIE will examine accessibility strategies as part of its routine inspection of schools. On that basis, strategies will become a reality on the ground and, over time, their application will become much more sophisticated. It is about providing not just physical access to premises, but access to the curriculum and to information and staff training.
I am pleased that the Executive has lodged amendment 4 and I urge the chamber to support it.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Section 5—Regulations
Amendment 5 is in a group on its own. I invite the deputy minister to speak to and move the amendment.
Amendment 5 arises from comments made by the Subordinate Legislation Committee. The Subordinate Legislation Committee felt that there should be a commitment on the face of the bill to consult on regulations, so that the need to consult would apply if regulations were revised at any time in the future.
I thank the committee for raising that important issue. We have already committed ourselves to consulting publicly as soon as possible on draft regulations on both pupils' educational records and accessibility strategies. Amendment 5 will ensure that the Scottish Executive consults interested parties about any regulations that are made, now or at any time in the future.
I move amendment 5.
I have not attempted to entice Jackie Baillie to contribute and no members want to speak to the amendment.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Section 7—Short title and commencement
Amendment 6 is in a group on its own.
Amendment 6 relates to the potential confusion that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee identified in relation to the term "pupils' records". There was a general feeling among committee members that there could be confusion about the short title and that the term could be taken to mean pupils' records of needs. The officials and legal advisers gave us ample reassurance that there would be no confusion in any interpretation of the act in the courts, but there was a general feeling in the committee that clarification would be helpful.
The regulation-making power in section 4 relates to pupils' educational records generally. Members of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee suggested that that was not reflected clearly in the short title of the bill. Jackie Baillie lodged a series of amendments that suggested that clarification could be achieved by replacing references to "records" with references to "information". We considered that carefully, but the advice that I received was that "information" was not the correct legal word to use and that it could be interpreted more widely than the term "pupils' records".
Nevertheless, I felt that although the term "pupils' records" was legally correct, it would be more appropriate to use in the short title the term that is used in the Data Protection Act 1998 and in the body of the bill, which is "educational records". That will address the committee's concerns. Everybody involved with the bill will welcome the change, although I might be surprised by a flurry of members wanting to speak at the end of my speech.
I propose amendment 6 as an alternative means of clarifying the short title, so that it reflects accurately the provisions made in the bill and so that there is absolutely no confusion with records of needs.
I move amendment 6.
I am afraid that I cannot conjure you up a flurry, minister, but I will call Jackie Baillie to speak.
You never know, I might constitute a flurry if the Presiding Officer lets me go on for long enough.
The minister is absolutely right. There was confusion about the use of the word "records" in the title of the bill, not just in the wider world but, at least initially, among practitioners in the field. Many people assumed that we were talking about the record of needs. Although I am sure that officials and legal advisers are technically right, the title was confusing for many of us simpler souls. I am happy to report that we are no longer confused.
Do you wish to respond, minister?
No, thank you.
Amendment 6 agreed to.