I am intervening partly to give the minister a minute to take a wee sip of water, but in the light of some of the other discussion that we have had during the debate, does the minister support greater education for clinicians and those working with young people to help identify FASD at the earliest possible opportunity and to raise awareness of some of the symptoms, so that we can see an end to those diagnosed with the wrong neurodevelopmental condition?

Will the minister give way?

It answers my question to a certain extent. What I am looking for is similar to what John Mason was asking about earlier with regard to how we drive cultural change. Some of that is structural—who is on the board and so on—but it is also about the approach to engaging with learners and teachers.

I accept that there is provision for a learner interest committee, but that will be quite small compared with the spread of learners across Scotland. How can the board and other bodies within qualifications Scotland be made more accessible and welcoming to learners and teachers to ensure that on-going feedback can be taken forward?

Thanks for having me. I have no relevant interests to declare.

Thanks, convener—the confusion that comes with two Gillians.

This question is for Fiona Robertson. The current SQA board comprises 11 members, none of whom, as far as I am aware, is a registered teacher, and none of whom has any experience of undertaking a current SQA qualification. I welcome the bill’s provisions to add teachers and learners to the board, although I think that they should be expanded to ensure that the board has a majority of registered teachers. How should the new board enact those provisions to ensure that the new body, qualifications Scotland, is more engaged with those groups than the SQA?

I have a very quick question. A lot of reform is going on, and the bill is only one part of it. Arguably, most of the reform that the Government wants to take forward is outwith the legislative space. Are we doing things in the right order, with legislation being introduced and then non-legislative reform work being done, or would you have liked to have seen something different?

A huge amount of reform work is being done, and the bill is only part of that. It could be argued that most of the reform that the Government is considering sits outside legislation. Do you believe that we are undertaking the reform work in the right order? Should we start with the bill and then move on to other non-legislative reform work, or would you have preferred us to take a different approach?

I will come to Anne Keenan first, because she has touched on all the other reform work that is under way.

I will come back to you, Graham, on the point about those jigsaw pieces. What are the dangers of potentially having to take a hammer to those jigsaw pieces to make them fit in that context of reform, rather than the whole-scale review to make sure that everything sits together neatly, as the Hayward approach might have achieved?

It answers my question to a certain extent. What I am looking for is similar to what John Mason was asking about earlier with regard to how we drive cultural change. Some of that is structural—who is on the board and so on—but it is also about the approach to engaging with learners and teachers.

I accept that there is provision for a learner interest committee, but that will be quite small compared with the spread of learners across Scotland. How can the board and other bodies within qualifications Scotland be made more accessible and welcoming to learners and teachers to ensure that on-going feedback can be taken forward?

I echo other members’ thanks to the clerks, committee members and those who gave evidence to the inquiry.

As most members will be aware, and as the committee’s report highlights, in the past decade alone, the number of pupils across Scotland with a recognised additional support need has doubled. As we have developed a better understanding of additional support needs, the number of pupils in Scotland who are identified as being in need of extra support has increased dramatically. However, those numbers do not include pupils who might have an additional support need that has not yet been recognised, for one reason or another, and who have slipped through the cracks of a system that is designed to support them.

The number of pupils with a recognised additional support need jumps wildly from year to year, not only because of our greater understanding of those additional needs but because of the disparity in reporting between local authorities.

Although, as members will be aware, I do not sit on the Education, Children and Young People Committee—I am impersonating Ross Greer today—I noted with great interest the contents of the report and the submissions to the committee. I will come on to many of them in due course, but one in particular relates to my previous point. The issue of when support can be put in place for a young person was highlighted in the report. It claims that some local authorities are waiting for a formal ASN diagnosis before putting the necessary support in place and that, in other areas, although that is not required, that fact is not communicated effectively to parents, which has a knock-on impact on the accuracy of reporting.

As we have heard, the only available support that is set out in law is co-ordinated support plans, but only 0.5 per cent of young people with a recognised ASN currently have one and the gap is continually widening. More and more frequently, we hear testimony—through the committee’s inquiry and beyond—that councils do not fully understand what is required of them when it comes to co-ordinated support plans and that young people and parents have gone through experiences that have been nothing short of traumatic because of the lack of a CSP.

Co-ordinated support plans should play a critical role in enabling children to access the support required to have their rights fulfilled, but the criteria for them is too narrow for them to be effective. The current criteria, which are outlined in the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, lead to an outdated and restrictive view of the provision of CSPs by local authorities. Removing the current criteria from primary legislation would provide greater flexibility and adaptability in ensuring that CSPs work for individuals.