Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Educational Records) (Scotland) Bill
I make the point that we are just over 40 minutes ahead of schedule. We proceed to a debate on motion S1M-2894, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, which seeks agreement that the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Educational Records) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I am glad to have the opportunity this afternoon to move the motion. I start by thanking everyone who has been involved in the work leading up to the bill's being introduced to Parliament and in its passage through the Parliament, the committee stage and back to the chamber today. Particular thanks ought to go to the people who worked on the bill team, the people in the voluntary sector and wider education community who contributed their views and opinions and MSPs who offered many helpful suggestions during the course of the bill's passage.
I am pleased that so many MSPs have taken an interest in the bill. I thank the members of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee for the way in which they worked in partnership with the Executive. I also thank the members of the other committees that took time to consider the bill. The way in which the committees worked with the Executive as they tried to secure and finalise improvements to the bill, from its introduction and through stages 2 and 3, is a model that I hope we can continue to work with in future. If we all work together to secure the best possible options for children and young people, we will find more that unites us than divides us. That may not make for an exciting debate in the chamber, but the bill that we will pass this afternoon will make a difference to the lives of people out in the real world. After all, that is our priority.
The Scottish Executive is committed to providing the promotion of equal opportunities in education for children and young people with disabilities with every chance. We are clear that we want all pupils with disabilities to be able to benefit from the same opportunities in education that their peers have and, as a result, to be given the skills that they need to play a full and active role in society as adults.
That is why we wanted to advance in the bill the principle that education providers must be proactive in developing strategies, so that services for pupils with disabilities meet their needs. At present, many providers tend to react to the needs of each child who attends their school. That approach is perfectly correct and of course providers should continue to use it. Individual needs are important.
However, we are aware that a growing number of children with a wide range of increasingly complex needs are being placed in mainstream schools and in special school settings. It is important that, in future, we have in place accessibility strategies that aim to ensure that school staff and the facilities and services that they provide are suitable and meet the needs of that range of pupils.
With this piece of legislation, we are asking people to build on and develop the good practice that is already happening throughout Scotland. The bill will allow education providers to increase, over a period, the number of schools, nursery classes and other education settings that are able to support fully pupils with a variety of disabilities. That will be achieved by the responsible bodies working together, consulting closely those with expertise and those affected by the improvements: school staff, pupils, parents, voluntary organisations, health and social work colleagues, to name but a few.
We believe that developing the strategies with so many interested groups working together will ensure not only that the strategies are improved and that we get them right, but that we have the opportunity to raise awareness of the implications of the strategies and support for their aims and principles.
We believe that the bill is realistic. It allows the responsible bodies some flexibility in determining their priorities, according to their pupil populations and how much progress has been made already in developing access. Different authorities will obviously start from different points. However, the bill places a clear statutory duty on those bodies—local authorities and independent, grant-aided and self-governing schools—to plan for the future and to make improvements.
We are clear that those improvements must cover three broad areas: access to the curriculum, access to the physical environment and communication with pupils. Those areas have been highlighted both today and during the course of members' consideration of the bill. In particular, Jackie Baillie emphasised those areas in her comments on the need to ensure that the bill is not just about school buildings but about how we work with vulnerable children and young people.
That wide-ranging duty will benefit all pupils, whether they are young people with learning difficulties or whether they have physical disabilities. I stress again how important it is that the strategies do not deal with physical access alone. Only a small percentage of people with disabilities require wheelchair access. Therefore, improving access to the curriculum and to communication is as important as improving the physical environment.
The bill is also about pupil records. We have heard eloquent contributions on some of the difficulties that surrounded the bill's title and the confusion that that caused in the initial stages, because of the meaning of pupil records and record of needs and the possibility of confusion around that. We were happy to clear up that confusion with our stage 3 amendment.
The bill is important because it enables us to reinstate an independent right for parents in Scotland to access their children's educational records. Unfortunately, that right was removed when the Data Protection Act 1998 extended data protection legislation to manual records as well as computerised records. We will introduce new regulations under section 4 of the bill, so that parents in Scotland once again will be able to enjoy that right.
The bill is an important piece of legislation. Again, I thank everyone for their co-operation, which ensured that the bill progressed sensibly, quickly and in a way that will make a difference to people who require support. The bill will advance progress in access in two areas of education. It is part of our continuing strategy to improve the life chances of all young people, particularly those who are vulnerable and have special needs.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Educational Records) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
Although the bill is a relatively short and fairly technical piece of legislation, it has the potential to improve significantly the situation for many of the estimated 15,000 children and young people in Scotland with disabilities.
We welcome the fact that from September of this year all education providers will have to produce, implement and review strategies for improving access in their schools. As we have heard, access covers physical access and access to the curriculum and to information. Crucially, that means that access covers all school activities, not just the core educational elements. The research that was carried out for the Executive by Capability Scotland confirmed that although access to core facilities in schools is high, it is almost non-existent for other activities and school trips and is limited in relation to playgrounds and dining halls.
During stage 2, amendments were lodged on several areas. Some amendments were more successful than others. Many of us were concerned to ensure that the strategies would be effective. We argued that unless a duty to publicise and disseminate the information was imposed on responsible bodies, people who could benefit from the strategies might have no knowledge of their existence. We also sought assurances that effectiveness would be monitored year on year and we were keen that there would be a formal right of remedy—a locally available, accessible complaints procedure.
I am reassured that the minister has listened to those concerns and has gone some way towards amending chapter 4 of the guidance to strengthen those provisions even more. I remain of the opinion that independent monitoring would be more appropriate, as would some mechanism for enforcement of the strategies, and if we want to be really aspirational, perhaps, in the fullness of time, an education tribunal system for Scotland.
None of that comes cheap. I remind the minister that resources will be essential to implement the changes that the strategies identify. We have heard from many local authorities that the estimated allocations from the Executive will be insufficient. We note that clarification from the Executive of the funding that will be available to voluntary sector education providers to implement their educational strategies would be appreciated.
If the bill is to be as effective as it needs to be, there must be training and education on equality issues for teachers and others. We support the ideal of fully inclusive education that gives disabled children and young people access to exactly the same experiences as their non-disabled peers. The bill will help to bring that into effect.
On behalf of the Conservatives, I am pleased to support the bill after its third stage. I associate myself with the thanks that the minister gave to the clerks and to all those involved in taking the bill to the point where it can be enacted. I am pleased to see a bill that aims to improve access and to restore to parents the right to see the educational records of their children. Who could disagree with that?
For the sake of brevity, rather than repeat the concerns that have already been expressed, I will pick up a number of different points. I agree with everything that has been said so far by the minister and by Irene McGugan. It is important that the appeals process works to the benefit of parents and that the process is clear. It is also important that the communications procedure ensures that people have the necessary information. I welcome the amendments that were agreed to earlier.
I must say that the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People has taken the occasional bruising when he has appeared before the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. However, in the minister's defence, I always find that he listens intently and seeks to find a resolution. The fact that the amendments were agreed to without division shows that the minister has been willing to work with the committee. I express my thanks to the minister for his approach.
There was a danger that accessibility strategies would lead to over-regulation and to head teachers and deputy head teachers being tied up in more administration and red tape. However, I believe that the solution that is proposed in the minister's amendments strikes the right balance. For instance, requiring that the Scottish Executive be provided with the accessibility strategies was the right thing to do, as there was a danger that the strategies might have been sent hither and yon, which would have been problematic. It is proper that the strategies should be sent to the minister, whose department can then look at them.
The one thing that I will say on the important issue of resources is that central Government must appreciate the burden that it must take on. It will be no use to expect local authorities, which raise such a small amount of their income locally, to take up that burden. Given the fact that, quite rightly, the burden has been placed on them, it is proper that central Government ensures that adequate resources are passed on to local authorities to deal with the new responsibilities.
As well as dealing with access for pupils with disabilities, the bill touches on pupils' educational records, on the history of which I want to make a few comments. As I have said before, the establishment of such records was helped by Alex Fletcher's Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and the School Pupil Records (Scotland) Regulations 1990. As has been said, it is regrettable that parents' rights were removed by the Data Protection Act 1998. It is also regrettable that Sam Galbraith's Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 could not have solved the problem or that a Sewel motion was not used when Westminster made the appropriate changes back in 2000. However, that is water under the bridge. We should all welcome the fact that the problem has now been solved.
I pray that the bill has got it right. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee repeatedly finds that Scottish statutory instruments—and, indeed, the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 itself—have drafting errors. That is highly regrettable, causes great irritation and raises a question mark over the standards of drafting of our legislation. We have already had to amend the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 once and I understand that we will need to do so yet again. I hope and pray that everything in the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Educational Records) (Scotland) Bill is correct and that we will not need to revisit it. It is with pleasure that we on this side of the chamber give the bill our whole-hearted support.
We will have a flurry of speeches now and I was marginally disappointed in Irene McGugan's contribution because she was gentle, positive and constructive throughout. I had hoped to be able to use the line that we had a flurry with a whinge on the top. [Laughter.]
Who writes this?
I assure members that it is all my own work.
I have no intention of detaining the chamber longer than necessary. I made it clear at stage 1 that the Liberal Democrats support the principles of the bill, both in the establishment of a requirement for responsible bodies to produce strategies that will give disabled pupils access to education—as has been said, that means physical access, access to the curriculum and access to communication between the authorities and the pupils—and in the restoration of parents' rights in relation to pupils' records. I accepted those principles and I welcome the amendments that we have agreed to today, which came in response to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's comments. In my view, they strengthen the bill.
I was going to say something nice about the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, Nicol Stephen, but it might have seemed a bit incestuous. I am delighted that Brian Monteith made kind comments. I thank Cathy Jamieson and Nicol, and indeed the officials, for the way in which they have dealt with the committee's responses to the bill.
I see the bill as another small but significant step in a range of policies that will lead to more equitable treatment for disabled youngsters across Scotland. In a week that has seen bad publicity for the Parliament, I am confident that the existence of the Scottish Parliament has made those numerous small steps easier to take, both because of the shorter legislative time required and because of the Parliament's consensual atmosphere. As somebody else said, although we may occasionally disagree about how to get there, most of the time we agree on where we want to go.
Like others, I hope that we will remain vigilant in the matter of funding and I worry that, rather like a certain building down the road, the project may well cost more than our original estimates. However, I very much hope that the final result will work well and will do us credit.
We must ensure that the time scale for the implementation of the strategies and the other items in the policy documents is not open-ended and is not totally elastic. We must see this as a programme to be implemented.
In our consideration of children with disabilities and special educational needs, good groundwork has been done across the board and a framework for equality of opportunity is beginning to be put in place. Within the next few years, we must begin to make progress in the strengthening of the framework that we have begun to erect in this first session of the Parliament. I am happy to support the words of the minister in opening the debate, and I am therefore happy to support the motion to pass the bill.
We come now to the flurry of speeches.
Just as the chamber unanimously welcomed the principles of the bill, I now welcome the detail of the bill at stage 3. I would like to say a word or two on process before I move to substance.
Dialogue with the minister at stage 2 resulted in the introduction of a number of helpful amendments, all of which the chamber has accepted. I therefore echo the minister's comments about our beneficial and collaborative way of working. It has been instructive and I look forward to it happening again in future.
I also echo the thanks that have been given to the clerks, the voluntary organisations and, indeed, the Executive. Many people put a lot of effort into getting us where we are today.
I want to move on to the substance, which is much more important. What the bill will achieve will be nothing short of a challenge to the way in which education is delivered for the 15,000 or so children and young people who have a disability. 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 enabled to fulfil their potential.
The bill brings those key principles together, building on the recommendations of the disability rights task force and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. As Irene McGugan said, by September 2002, every education provider in Scotland will have to produce an accessibility strategy—addressing not only access to buildings but access to the school curriculum, information and communication.
Access to mainstream education can now become a reality. Thinking ahead about children's needs and planning for them will become the norm. That is a positive change in the culture. As I said in a previous speech, if we are to achieve the step change in the experience of disabled children in their school years that we all desire, it is essential that we have a robust monitoring and evaluation mechanism. Accessibility strategies will only ever be as good as their implementation. The Executive's proposals on monitoring reassure me that the documents will become living and breathing strategies, rather than be destined to gather dust on a shelf. Given that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education is involved in monitoring implementation as part of its regular inspection of schools we will know whether it is working on the ground.
The bill is welcomed by statutory organisations, voluntary organisations, members and, most important, by all parents and children. It is an important step in achieving equality in education for all our children and provides a real opportunity to ensure that we unlock the potential in every child, irrespective of their ability. I urge members to support the bill.
Often in stage 3 debates, one gets to the point where the only thing that is left to do is to thank the priest for the hire of the hall. Frankly, we have had all the appreciation that we need, although everyone has worked very hard. I was alarmed by Brian Monteith's compliments to the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People. I suspect that being complimented by Brian Monteith is a very bad thing—I have never experienced it.
And you never will.
Thank you, Mr McAveety, I am reassured by that comment.
I am tempted.
Mr Monteith may well be tempted, but he is not getting in.
The important point that I want to make is not a whinge, but a reality. The briefing that Capability Scotland provided to members for the debate, which urges us to support the bill, points out the figures that are at the heart of the issue. It states that the Westminster Government, under
"the Schools Access Initiative … has allocated £220 million for 2002-2005; and £100 million for 1999-2002".
Capability Scotland estimates that the proper figure for Scotland for 1999-2005 would be at least £32 million, which does not approach the amount that has been allocated. If we want the policy to succeed, we will have to resource it. The simple fact is that we must find the right amount of resources to back the policy.
In the stage 1 debate, I said that I thought that there would be huge demand and that when people realised what things could be done, they would want them to be done quickly. It is a similar problem to that faced by the Scottish Parliament: there is huge demand and expectations that have not been fulfilled. It would be sad if the expectations of the bill—an important piece of legislation—were not fulfilled, simply for financial reasons. I point out to Mr Jenkins that that is not a whinge but simply reflects what the bodies that know what is happening are saying about the bill. I hope that the minister will think on the matter and if possible indicate during his summing-up speech that some movement will be made on resources. If that is not possible, I hope that the minister will keep thinking about the matter and will issue proposals to resource the policy.
The bill is an example of the way in which members can work together in the Parliament. Ian Jenkins is right to point out that in a difficult week—our 1000th day ringing in our ears—it is important to show what the Parliament can do in co-operation with the Executive. The Parliament has co-operated with the Executive on the bill, but there have also been useful tensions and arguments. We have created legislation to help children in Scotland—that is what the Parliament is here to do and that is what we have done.
On behalf of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, I thank members who have spoken for their contribution to the debate on this very important bill. I note with interest that Ian Jenkins used the word flurry on a couple of occasions. Given the Scottish surnames that we have in the Parliament, I am tempted to suggest that my contribution to the debate will be a McFlurry—I made that comment as a bet.
During the various stages of the bill, most members have identified why it is important. When we come to write the history of the Parliament, we will focus on the small things that have genuinely made a difference to many of the people who have been excluded for far too long. The fact that very few, if any, of the parliamentary journalists are in the press gallery to report on an issue that affects the most excluded in our communities signals to me how important they consider such issues to be compared to the criticism that much-maligned parliamentarians receive when trying to make legislation that will make a difference.
The fact that members from all parties have contributed to the bill might concentrate the minds of those on the Conservative benches, such as Brian Monteith, on the contribution that 129 members can make to debates in the Parliament and to making a genuine difference for the future.
Jackie Baillie, Irene McGugan and other members of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee have focused primarily on issues relating to the bill. As deputy convener of the committee, I thank them for identifying ways of moving forward at stages 2 and 3. Their gentle, probing words demonstrated the iron-fist-in-a-velvet-glove approach that is the hallmark of Jackie Baillie. I have known that approach in the past, and the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People recognised it during stage 2 debates and responded appropriately this afternoon.
It is important to monitor the accessibility strategies. The fact that we have set out guidelines on that will be important for the future. At this point in history, we do not know exactly what the impact of the bill will be. However, we will have the answers if over the next three or four years we monitor the extent to which it makes a genuine difference for the individuals whose educational experience it is meant to improve.
I welcome our recognition of the fact that accessibility strategies need to be engaged with, and that people who are experiencing the negativities of accessibility must be included. All the major organisations and institutions that must provide that accessibility will work in partnership over the next few years to improve the situation immeasurably. I recognise the problem that Capability Scotland raised of ensuring that resources are appropriate to the tasks that are set out in the bill. The committee will endeavour to examine that matter in the coming period. The fact that we have set a template for recommendations will concentrate the minds of the agencies that have to deliver the accessibility strategies. As well as seeking additional resources, they will have to examine their existing resources to see how to reprioritise within their global sum, now that accessibility is enshrined in legislation. They will have to identify in partnership with individuals how they can make a difference.
An issue that is not so central, but which is equally important, is the restoration of the right of access to pupil educational records. I welcome the fact that the minister has identified ways in which language can be used more appropriately so that there is no confusion with the record of needs. I appreciate his recognition of that point.
As many members have done, I thank the advisers and the staff of the Scottish Parliament information centre, particularly Camilla Kidner, as well as the parliamentary clerks. I also thank the organisations that submitted effective evidence to the committee to allow us to finalise our views. In particular, I thank Capability Scotland, which provided measured contributions to allow us to amend the bill. I welcome the bill and hope that members will support it.
As my colleague Brian Monteith said, the Scottish Conservatives welcome the bill. I have no wish to detain members unduly—I know that we are getting into end-of-term mode—but I have one point to make briefly. It follows on from what I said in the stage 1 debate about the costs of implementation. A few other members have also raised that issue. I shall address the costs as they affect independent schools, a number of which I have visited in the past few weeks.
Independent schools have no problem with the principles of the bill. In fact, many of them have better provision for disabled children than many state schools. However, there is concern over the possible costs of implementation of the bill and the impact on boarding schools especially, of which there are several in Perth and Kinross. The bill follows the recent Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001, which also introduced a burden on independent schools, and there is concern about an on-going march of regulation that may affect their economic viability.
It would be reassuring if the minister could confirm that no attempt is being made at a back-door assault on independent schools; that the Executive understands that independent schools are an important component of the educational framework in Scotland; and that the Executive supports the right of parents to choose independent schools if they are in a position to do so.
I close by reiterating that we support the bill.
I, too, welcome the bill. It puts in place an important part of the jigsaw that underpins the presumption of the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools. It also underpins our long-standing commitment to educate pupils in schools in their communities, which fits in with our signing of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the "Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education".
Every child has the right to be educated in their community. It is salutary for us to remember that it is only since the 1970s that children have had the right to education. Until the 1970s, many children were categorised as educationally subnormal. Thank God we have come a long way since then.
The bill places an important duty on education providers. Until now, far too much has been left to chance. Many schools have established policies to ensure that they provide appropriate education for all pupils and many have implemented whole school policies on children with special educational needs. However, that work has often been left to committed senior managers or teachers of children with special educational needs. HMIE has inspected that aspect of schools before, but now it will be able to inspect local authorities' accessibility strategies. It is important that local authorities have a duty to draw up those strategies.
I agree that accessibility means a lot more than simply physical access. Access to the curriculum is vital. There is no point in children being physically integrated in schools if they are not able to access the curriculum and interact and learn. Being there is not enough—they have to access the curriculum.
I also welcome the partnership working with parents, pupils, school voluntary sector organisations and a range of other agencies. In future policy documents, warm words will not be enough. There will have to be strategies and action plans and, importantly, those will have to be monitored and evaluated. We need the framework to ensure that, at last, we can fulfil our policy commitment to include all pupils and ensure that the right of every pupil to be educated in their community is upheld.
I add my thanks to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, its staff, the bill team, the voluntary organisations and the other interested individuals and bodies that contributed to the progression of the bill through the Parliament. I also thank Brian Monteith for his kind remarks.
I will be brief. The bill forms an important part of the large number of initiatives that the Executive is implementing to promote equal opportunities for all pupils who have additional support needs. We should remember that there can be short-term needs and long-term and serious disabilities. All needs should be covered.
I understand the point that members made about funding. The Executive is already providing significant funding for improved provision for children with special educational needs and children with disabilities through funding for inclusion, staff training, research and development and capital investment in schools. At stage 2, the committee discussed the need to integrate initiatives that relate to disability legislation and initiatives that relate to special educational needs legislation. I agree that there is such a need.
Local authorities are continuing to put all the available funding to good use in providing for pupils with disabilities. The situation will be kept under review and there will be opportunities to inject new funding. At this stage on a Thursday afternoon during a stage 3 debate, it would be wrong to make an announcement, but there are opportunities through the inclusion programme, for example, to consider additional sources of funding. It is vital to ensure that strategies deliver. They will achieve nothing if they remain strategies—they must be turned into reality.
My speaking note does not have the word educational, but I assume that the message will go out that the act will be known as the Education (Disability Strategies and Pupils' Educational Records) (Scotland) Act 2002. I assure members that we will make clear regulations under section 4 of the bill as soon as it becomes an act so that parents in Scotland can once again access the records that schools hold about their children.
I am two sentences away from the end of my contribution, but I will give way to Mr Monteith.
It is over a minute from when we are meant to finish.
I thought that the minister would respond to what Murdo Fraser said about independent schools. I want to add to what he said and ask the minister to respond. One of the concerns about independent schools is that many of them are listed buildings, and often A–listed buildings, such as Fettes College, which many members know well. If buildings are listed, there are difficulties in making physical changes. Financial support will be required. [Interruption.]
Things are being thrown at Brian Monteith now.
That aim was bad. I think that things were thrown at Mike Russell, actually.
The debate has been remarkable in many ways. Will you conclude what you were saying, Mr Monteith?
Will it be in order for listed schools to apply to Historic Scotland through the normal process for grant aid to make the necessary physical changes and to use grant aid that would normally be available for general restoration purposes to make various changes?
The minister has only 30 minutes left.
The short answer to Mr Monteith's question is that I am not sure. I am happy to investigate that issue in respect of independent schools. I will write to Brian Monteith and give him accurate information rather than an off-the-cuff response.
We have a good relationship with independent schools. I appreciate that there are new burdens for the independent sector—for example, the McCrone settlement is an additional burden and the new probationer scheme is a potential additional burden. The bill also carries additional responsibilities, but the independent sector consistently takes a positive approach because it recognises, as members do, that improvements will benefit the whole of education in Scotland. We welcome that approach.
I said that I was two sentences away from concluding; in fact, I notice that I am only one sentence away.
I thank MSPs for their support in driving the bill forward and I hope that members can be further involved in its implementation. It has been a good example of a bill where members from all political parties on the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and on other committees have worked together. That has been reflected in the level of agreement that has allowed us to get through business so swiftly this afternoon.