Education and Skills Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 3, 2021

Official Report 634KB pdf

---

Additional Support for Learning Review

Our next agenda item is an evidence session on the additional support for learning review, which is also known as the Morgan report. Again, I welcome the cabinet secretary, John Swinney. Members who wish to ask a question should indicate so in the chat function.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.

Thank you, convener. Scotland’s education system is built on the founding principles of excellence and equity for all. We all have the shared goal that children and young people be supported to reach their full potential.

I asked Angela Morgan to review the implementation of additional support for learning because I wanted to understand better the issues that directly affect children and young people and those who support them. I asked her to identify good practice and to explore further the issues that might prevent the successful implementation of additional support for learning within existing legal and financial frameworks. The remit was agreed between the Scottish Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland.

The review’s conclusions and the comprehensive set of actions that we will take to deliver the recommendations have been broadly welcomed by stakeholders. I am grateful for their commitment to continue to work together as we strive towards our goal of improving the experiences of children and young people. Angela Morgan’s review and our joint action plan provide the foundation for real improvement in our education system.

I absolutely recognise that enhancements are needed to improve the experiences of children and young people with additional support needs and to strengthen the support that is available to their families and those who support them at school. Equally, I recognise that we remain in challenging times and that the Covid-19 pandemic continues to affect all our lives. Despite those challenges, we have begun to make progress in a number of key areas.

We must raise the profile of additional support for learning and further celebrate the successes and achievements of children and young people. Key to that is the development of a vision statement, which is already being worked on by the young ambassadors for inclusion, who are bringing in their unique perspective and experience. The creation of a national measurement framework, which is being driven by the additional support for learning implementation group, will elevate the successes and achievements of children and young people.

We are working to strengthen the available support to teachers through initial teacher education and professional development. We are working with support staff to ensure that they have the tools that they need to fully support children and young people. We are also working with partners, including parents and carers, to consider how to empower and support families to access the right support at the right time, as well as how to promote positive communication and collaboration between families, schools and local authorities.

The review of the use of co-ordinated support plans to ensure that children and young people with the most complex needs can be fully supported by all agencies to achieve their full potential has started. The working group has met already.

The Morgan review and its findings have enhanced our understanding of the issues that are currently preventing successful implementation, and they will further inform our consideration of resources. We accept the recommendation that the expertise that is required for legitimate analysis of the resourcing and financial implementation of additional support for learning lies with Audit Scotland and its audit of additional support for learning.

I remain fully committed to working collaboratively with partners to improve the experiences of children and young people with additional support needs and to celebrate their significant achievements and successes. I am grateful to the committee for its detailed consideration of this vital work, and I look forward to answering any questions that members have on the actions that we are taking.

Thank you, cabinet secretary.

In September 2019, the Scottish Government announced that it would provide £15 million of funding for the recruitment of 1,000 classroom assistants to support those with additional support needs. I understand that the statistics on the support staff who were working in September 2020 will be published in spring 2021 and that staff who were employed as a result of the additional funding will not be identified separately. Has the cabinet secretary had any feedback from COSLA or local authorities about the implementation of the commitment? Have there been any recruitment drives? If so, have they been successful?

10:15  

Local authorities are pursuing recruitment of individuals as a consequence of the grant funding from the Government, which is focused funding for the recruitment of staff to provide additional support needs activity. In due course, we will see the reports from local authorities. We need to give them reasonable time to make progress on those matters, but, when we have information on that progress, we will share it more widely.

Will the funding be ring fenced to ensure that the extra support is directed towards those with additional support needs?

The funding is given for that purpose, so it must be used for that purpose, and we will get detailed feedback from local authorities at the appropriate time.

I had a conversation with an ASN support worker who highlighted the conditions that everybody is working under at the moment. Support workers feel that they are being spread thinner and pushed to their limits. Although they feel that they are valued in the school and the community, that person said that she did not feel valued higher up. What might you say to support workers such as my constituent?

I would be profoundly disappointed if that is how that individual felt. It is not fair or appropriate that they should feel like that. I suspect that a general point comes out of a lot of this discussion, which is perhaps that due account is not taken of the significance of the role of support staff. I have seen countless examples of support staff successfully establishing a relationship and a connection with a child—perhaps because they have more time and space to do that than teachers who have multiple demands on their time—and, as a consequence, making huge progress in enabling the young person to be active and to fulfil their potential.

One of the conclusions of Angela Morgan’s review was that the work of additional support needs staff is undervalued, which is at the heart of Beatrice Wishart’s question. I was a bit startled when I saw that issue emerging from the review, because it is not the way that I feel. However, if Angela Morgan felt that she had to include it in her recommendations, it must have been how other people were feeling. We must take very seriously the fact that Angela Morgan put such emphasis and weight on that point, and I take it very seriously.

At our previous evidence session on the review, the committee heard from a number of witnesses, including representatives from the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland and Education Scotland. I am not convinced that their interpretation of the Morgan review was the same as mine. I am interested in your thoughts. I feel that a step change is required in the approach to ASN, if for no other reason than the finding that parents have to fight to get support. That must change, and that requires deep systemic change and change in individual practice. Therefore, I am interested to know how you view the Morgan review: how far reaching is it, and how big a change does it require in our approach to ASN in our schools? I recognise that that is a broad question.

I hope that Daniel Johnson took from my answer to Beatrice Wishart, when I began to get into some of this territory, that I found Angela Morgan’s review really quite challenging—justifiably so. I did not ask Angela Morgan to review the legislative framework behind additional support for learning, as I believe that that is good and robust. The question that we asked her, if I can put it colloquially, was, “Does the rhetoric live up to the reality?” Perhaps it was the other way round: “Does the reality live up to the rhetoric?” I am not sure which way round that goes. What I found challenging was that Angela Morgan highlighted a difference between the reality and the rhetoric.

Mr Johnson asked whether is it acceptable to have a culture in which parents must fight for every inch of education that is available to a child who needs additional support for learning. No, it is not. There should be collaboration and an open, friendly and accommodating discussion. Everyone should ensure that the child or young person gets the support that they require to thrive. That might not be what parents experience, but it is, in my view, what the law says should be happening. If that is not the experience, then Angela Morgan’s review has shone an appropriate light on something that we must challenge.

The committee and the cabinet secretary know that I am interested in the additional support needs of those with neurodevelopmental disorders. Edward Mountain recently asked an interesting question about diagnosis of those disorders in early years education. I hesitate to call it screening, but is there a role for more and better use of neurological tools that can predict conditions such as autism spectrum disorder, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder? Those tools are not diagnostic, but they can put young people on a path towards diagnosis. Is there a role for greater use of such tools in schools?

A number of autism charities have called for the creation of a commissioner for autism. What does the cabinet secretary think about the call for a commissioner specifically for autism or for neurodiversity?

Both of those questions go to the heart of the issues. Before Mr Johnson moved on to ask about the possibility of an autism commissioner, I was going to answer his question about pathways to diagnosis as follows.

Even before early learning, our approach to child support—including visits by midwives and the series of health visitor appointments that we encourage families to have to assure them about their children’s development—is part of a pathway that ensures that a child’s needs are properly identified at the earliest opportunity. That should continue into early learning, which starts for some children at age two and for most at three. By August, we will be providing 1,140 hours of early learning for those young people.

We must use all of that engagement to identify how best to support the development of individual children. We have just had a long evidence session looking at how the Government decided to prioritise the return to early learning and childcare during the pandemic. We recognise that that is significant to children’s capacity for development.

All that individual assessment of a young person or a child, their challenges and their issues should inform any further scrutiny that might be required on additional support needs. That is how I see the system operating. I would like to think that that is how we identify any individual child who might need additional support. I therefore question whether it is necessary to have a specific commissioner to deal with children with autism. The needs of children would be ordinarily identified, met and supported in our system.

Going back to Mr Johnson’s first question, Angela Morgan’s review tells us that there is a difference between the rhetoric and the reality. I can understand that people would argue for there to be an autism or neurodiversity commissioner because they fear that such a difference will always be there. I suppose that Angela Morgan is challenging us—me, local authorities, directors of education and all of us—to ensure that the reality and the rhetoric are the same thing.

Before we move to questions from Ms Mackay, I will ask a supplementary question. At our meeting last week, Mr Johnson asked Maree Todd a question about support in early years settings. In her response, she was unequivocal that there should be no need to wait for a diagnosis or a reason if a child’s need has been identified and that support should, absolutely, be in place. However, my own experience of representing constituents has been that that is not the case. There is also the issue of transition from such early years settings, whereby support that had previously been identified and put in place is not being taken up with the education authority when a child moves into primary school.

When you say that our approach has to be challenged, who is responsible for doing that? Parents and individual members are doing that, and I myself have advocated for parents. What role do HMIE and Education Scotland have in moving things forward, so that we are not just continually batting the issue between local authorities and the Government?

Part of my approach to the composition of the review was to recognise that providing such support is a shared priority. It is not a parcel to be passed between different tiers of Government; it is a priority for all of us. Parliament has passed a legislative framework, which I think is really strong—I do not think that there is anything wrong with it—but Angela Morgan’s review challenges the gap between the rhetoric and the reality.

The review was commissioned jointly by the Government, local authorities and directors of education. I chose that approach deliberately so that the commissioning and the addressing of the issues would be jointly owned—and, frankly, so that I did not need to send in Her Majesty’s inspector of education to check up on whether it was happening. The aim was that we would all take forward such a change in culture.

I suppose that I am feeling a bit uneasy about that point, having listened to Mr Johnson’s first question to me. He said that when a variety of our partners were before the committee he did not quite feel as though the challenge was being owned and addressed. Angela Morgan’s review says that we have to own, accept and address it, so that is what we must do.

10:30  

I want to ask about co-ordinated support plans and the difficulties that have surrounded those. Does the cabinet secretary still think that they are fit for purpose? Many parents are unaware of them, and the ones who are often ask for the support but it is not forthcoming and there does not seem to be a co-ordinated support plan. Will the short-life working group examine the issue as a result of Angela Morgan’s report?

There are two points to be made in response to that question. My view of how additional support needs must be met, which goes back to my answer to Daniel Johnson, is that our care education system needs to support families from day 1 to address any challenges and issues that their children face. We know, from all the research that has been done, that the sooner we address any challenges that a child faces, the better, because that will narrow any gaps that become more embedded in the years to come.

We should identify needs at the earliest possible opportunity, intervening and providing the support that an individual child requires. That process should not need to wait until the formalisation of a co-ordinated support plan but should just be the right thing to do if we are to live out the rhetoric of getting it right for every child. That should be the experience that families have.

As matters develop, there might be a requirement for formalisation in a co-ordinated support plan. I have seen examples of such plans having made a huge difference to the lives of individual children, because they have given order to the type of support that is in place to meet the needs of individual children—[Inaudible.] I am aware, however, that families have to make quite an effort to secure a co-ordinated support plan, and that is not how the system was designed to operate. Generally, all of that comes back to the fundamental challenge from Angela Morgan, which is about ensuring that the rhetoric and the reality are one and the same thing.

Do you think that the difficulties with CSPs are perhaps around the communication of them and what they mean, as well as a lack of understanding as to exactly what you said—that children’s needs should be addressed initially, regardless, whereas CSPs are a more formal process? I am not sure that that message is being communicated properly to parents so that they fully understand what it means, because they feel that it should be something that is automatically given, and that is clearly not the case. Is there a communication problem surrounding CSPs?

We have the—[Inaudible.]—short-life working group to—

I am sorry, Mr Swinney, but we lost the sound there. Could you start again, please?

As part of the response that we set out to Angela Morgan’s review, we established a short-life working group, which is exploring the relationships between getting it right for every child, the role of different partner organisations and the formulation of co-ordinated support plans in tackling some of the issues that Rona Mackay has raised.

The questions that Rona Mackay has put to me reflect some of the difficulty that can exist with taking a more formal route in the process, whereas I am keen that we take a much more informal route and address needs as they present themselves in the education system, promptly and early. By that means, we will avoid having to formulate co-ordinated support plans. They may be necessary in some circumstances—that is absolutely right—but I would rather that we did not wait for that—[Inaudible.]

[Inaudible.]

[Inaudible.]—approve the right of families to go to an additional support needs tribunal, as I fundamentally accept the point in Mr Greer’s question that families must have a place in the ultimate decision making if they feel that their concerns have not been properly addressed. I would rather avoid adding to the tribunal’s caseload.

I agree—I am sure that we all agree—that families should not have to go to the ASN tribunal and that only a difficult, extremely challenging set of circumstances would lead to that. However, as we have just discussed, and as we have been discussing for years, there are thousands of families across the country who are in that situation—who are struggling but are not getting the support that they need. The committee has repeatedly taken evidence from parents, support staff and charities who have had to explain that too many children in Scotland have to be traumatised by a failure to provide adequate support before that support is provided.

Given that we know that that is happening—that there are so many families for whom a lack of support is causing such severe problems—does it not concern you that there is a gap between the large number of families that we know of who are in that situation and the very small number of people who are using the tribunal system, which is designed to solve the problems that those families are all going through? We do not want them to have those problems, but we know that they do. Is the problem not that the ASN tribunal system is not being used to resolve them?

I think that the cases that reach the ASN tribunal will be properly and effectively handled by the tribunal. I have every confidence in the tribunal system and in how the tribunal goes about its functions.

The answer to Mr Greer’s question lies at the heart of Angela Morgan’s review, which—I am afraid that I am going to use this language persistently this morning—challenges the gap between the rhetoric and the reality. If we are saying to families that the needs of children and young people should be met and accommodated at the earliest possible opportunity, that should be the experience. I do not think that the first response to that should be to put more cases to the ASN tribunal; the first response to that should be to do something to tackle the gap between the rhetoric and the reality. That is why I invited Angela Morgan to undertake that work, and it is why I have accepted—as have our partners—her recommendations, which require us to take more effective steps to ensure that those issues are properly addressed.

I have one final question. Before the pandemic, back when we did end-of-term exams, we had reached a point, in 2019, when pupils with additional support needs were sitting in exam halls for up to three and a half hours—certainly, on average, for longer than anyone else, because of the extended time that they were given. Giving more time to those with greater needs is well intentioned, but it causes problems of its own. Does our qualifications system adequately take additional needs into account, or should we consider more imaginative ways to meet those needs than simply adding half an hour at the end of an exam?

That question raises significant issues that merit exploration, and I am not sure that those issues are all contained in the matter of meeting the needs of pupils with additional support needs. What should the purpose of an assessment system be? It should be to assess the command of learning and teaching, as well as the improvement in capacity that has been achieved as a consequence of the efforts of an individual learner. There are multiple ways in which we can undertake that task, some of which will be relevant to pupils with additional support needs and some of which will be relevant to all pupils.

I would like to go back to Ross Greer’s line of questioning about co-ordinated support plans. As he pointed out, that is the only plan that a family of a child with additional support needs can have that has statutory force, and it is the only plan that allows a family to go to the tribunal to get the support that they need for their son or daughter.

We need to understand the scale of this. In December, the Scottish Children’s Services Coalition published figures that showed that 0.7 per cent of children with additional support needs have a co-ordinated support plan. That means that more than 99 per cent of children with additional support needs have no statutory underpinning to the services that they require and no recourse to the tribunal. Is the cabinet secretary really saying that he thinks that that is okay, because he prefers an informal approach and does not want to overburden the tribunal?

Mr Gray’s question mixes up a number of different concepts and answers that I have given to the committee’s questions. In my answer to Daniel Johnson, I said that I want to make sure that we have a system that addresses and meets the needs of children with additional support needs from the earliest opportunity. Angela Morgan challenges us to ensure that that is the case. For me, the gold standard of what we should be trying to achieve is that, at the earliest possible opportunity, we meet the needs of individual children and young people to enable them to fulfil their potential.

10:45  

If the needs of a young person are being met adequately, we would all ask why it is necessary for there to be a co-ordinated support plan. Multiple plans will be in place to meet the needs of learners that do not have the formality of a co-ordinated support plan. There will be various arrangements and agreements around what will meet the needs of individual young people. I do not think that it is appropriate to say that the number of co-ordinated support plans measures the degree to which there are specific provisions in place—that is not a fair assumption at all. Essentially, we make sure that those needs are met, and, if there is a case for the formulation of a co-ordinated support plan, a plan should be put in place. If that gives rise to a tribunal case, then, regrettably, that needs to be addressed.

To me, the fundamental issue is that we focus our system on addressing the needs of children and young people at the earliest possible opportunity and as fully as we possibly can.

I do not want to be mixed up here. For the sake of absolute clarity, is the cabinet secretary seriously suggesting that more than 99 per cent of children with additional support needs do not have co-ordinated support plans because the support that they need is in place through other, non-statutory, less formal means?

I am not saying that. I will be responsible for—[Inaudible.] I said that the system that I want to see in place—which, as I have acknowledged in my answer to Daniel Johnson, is not everybody’s wish just now—is one in which the needs of children and young people are addressed at the earliest possible opportunity with appropriate intervention. That is what we should be working towards, and that is what Angela Morgan has challenged the whole education and care system to ensure is the case. It should be the product of dialogue with families and with the education and care system to ensure that children and young people are properly supported.

The law is very clear about the circumstances in which a co-ordinated support plan should be put in place, and in no way would I seek to change or amend those provisions. However, I think that it would be better—this follows the logic of Angela Morgan’s review—to ensure that the support that children and young people require is put in place at the earliest possible opportunity.

It has been almost two years since you said that you would review co-ordinated support plans—that was in May 2019. Today, you have said that the short-term working group has met. In terms of looking at the role of co-ordinated support plans and trying to explain why there are so few in place, it has been two years and we have a short-term working group that has met. Do you really think that that is an urgent enough response?

It has to be seen alongside the other work that we have commissioned in relation to the work of the Morgan review. The review has given us a comprehensive assessment of the measures that are in place to support young people with additional support needs and of the challenges of Government and local authorities in addressing those needs fully. That is what we embarking on.

The co-ordinated support plans have a specific statutory focus. You will notice the participation of certain organisations. The Morgan review says to us that, ordinarily, we have to make sure that that support is in place at the earliest possible opportunity, and I am whole-heartedly committing myself to ensuring that that is the case.

Mr Gray, I feel that things are not moving forward. You can come back in if you want to, but other members have other areas to cover.

I just find it very difficult to accept that the cabinet secretary feels that it is okay for less than 1 per cent of children with additional support needs to have access to the rights that were placed in law. He referred to the gap between rhetoric and reality. I am sure that many families who are listening today will feel that that applies to their access to support. Those families have rights, and they should be able to exercise them.

A range of mechanisms other than co-ordinated support plans are available to ensure that the needs of individuals are met, whether that involves the ordinary provision of services, mediation or arbitration to avoid some of the more complex and confrontational challenges that exist around some of these issues. I want to avoid those challenges so that people get the support that they require.

I do not want my comments to be misunderstood or misinterpreted. I want young people to get the support that they need at the earliest possible opportunity, and I do not want that to be a product only of their having a co-ordinated support plan. I want that support to be available in the first instance, ordinarily, and the Morgan review challenges us to ensure that that is the case.

Angela Morgan made it clear to the committee that the remit of her review of the delivery of ASN provision did not specifically extend to issues of staffing and resource, be that financial or workforce resource. We know that the number of ASN pupils in our schools has almost doubled since 2012, which is a huge increase, yet the number of specialist ASN teachers appears to have fallen by a quarter over roughly the same period. Why is that?

The best way to address that issue is to look at the way in which we have fundamentally expanded the definition of children’s additional support needs to reach a much wider group of our school population. The overwhelming majority of those pupils are educated in the mainstream environment, and teaching and support staff are supported to meet their needs in that context. That is the model that we operate. We adopted the mainstreaming principle, which we believe is the most effective way of delivering that support. Our teaching and support staff are working to meet the needs of individual children and young people in the context of our education system.

Is that not exactly the point? The presumption of mainstreaming is a principle that I think that most stakeholders support in theory, but—to throw the cabinet secretary’s words back at him—the theory and perception are very different from the reality. The Educational Institute of Scotland, which represents the teaching community, recently surveyed its members, and the stark response was that 80 per cent of teachers felt that additional support needs were not being met in their schools.

Given that the Morgan review did not look at the overall concept of the presumption to mainstream, will the Government itself undertake any work to look at the efficacy of that policy? Although it is a good policy in principle, it is clear that, on the ground, teachers—and many parents—believe that it is not being delivered properly.

In that respect, it is important that we go back to first principles. On our approach to education, I frequently set out to the committee that our first principle is our determination that we get it right for every child. That should be the foundation of our approach to education policy. From my discussions with educators around the country, I am satisfied that they are focusing directly on the needs of individual children and identifying how they can most effectively meet those needs in the context in which those children are being educated.

Judgments will be made about whether such provision can be delivered in a mainstream environment. For some pupils, the decision is taken that it cannot be, and the needs of those children can best be met in the context of an additional support needs unit or a special school. Individual judgments will be made on the position of each individual pupil to determine how their needs can best be met. The Morgan review challenges us to ensure that that approach is being taken as effectively as possible.

I do not have a policy appetite to review the principle of mainstreaming. That is not the Government’s position. The Government supports the policy of mainstreaming. Essentially, we invited Angela Morgan to identify for all partners, particularly local authorities, which are responsible for the statutory delivery of education at the local level, how best that could be accomplished. That is what her review helpfully sets out for us, and we are now responding on how we are taking forward its recommendations.

The problem is that we have a triple whammy at the moment. Your Government made a firm commitment to reduce class sizes, but that commitment has not been met in the majority of cases. There has been a huge increase in the number of ASN pupils in mainstream education and there has been a reduction in support teaching staff, ASN staff and other classroom personnel. That has inevitably led to the perfect storm that we are now in, with overstretched teachers who feel that ASN is not being delivered in school. What is your Government going to do to address that?

A number of points of evidence counter what Mr Greene has just put to me. For example, according to the most recent data available, local authority spending on education has increased from £5.2 billion to £5.6 billion. That is a £400 million increase in expenditure on education at the local level. As part of that, expenditure to support the education of pupils with additional support needs increased from £633 million to £661 million. That is a very substantial increase in expenditure at the local level. The evidence of investment runs contrary to the narrative that has been put to me by Mr Greene.

We are trying to ensure that young people have the best educational experience that they can have. I have not seen anything that leads me to the view that we should change our policy presumption here, but, from a policy perspective, the principle of mainstreaming is the right approach and the inclusive approach for us to take. In my observation of our schools, the application of the principle of mainstreaming creates an inclusive environment in schools and makes young people feel very much part of our society. I very much welcome that.

I do not think that this is a declarable interest, but, given the questions that I am going to ask, I draw members’ attention to the fact that I have been diagnosed with dyspraxia and dyslexia.

How confident did you feel in the identification of ASN? One issue that comes up time and again is the role of teachers—whether classroom teachers have the skills, training and confidence to identify additional support needs such as dyslexia and how those are applied across the board. It seems that less use is being made of educational psychologists. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary has any reflections on that in the light of the report.

There is a series of stages in the identification of needs, and it is important that they are all properly followed. As I have gone through with the committee before, assessment is made of the development of an individual child at a number of stages in their life journey. Initially, in the child’s early days, that is done through the intervention of midwives. Then there is the health visitor community. Crucially, there must be a connection between all those different stages as the child moves into early learning and childcare and then into formal school education.

11:00  

We should consider the expected developmental milestones at all stages. If anything emerges to suggest that a child might have a need or face a challenge or an issue, that should be explored further by appropriate specialists.

Mr Mundell asked about the role of educational psychologists. If a classroom teacher feels that a young person is not developing as they should, the system should begin a dialogue with the family so that they are fully involved and understand the issues. If necessary, there should be external assistance to support the family, and, in many situations, that support will come from an educational psychologist.

A classroom teacher might not have all those skills, but they will be able to identify whether a young person faces particular challenges or obstacles that might merit further investigation. In such circumstances, that investigation should be forthcoming.

The answer is helpful, but that is another area where the rhetoric does not match what happens.

That leads me to my second question. If the identification of dyslexia was going well across Scotland, would we not expect to see a consistent picture in all local authorities? How does the cabinet secretary explain the different levels of identification of dyslexia and other additional support needs in different local authorities? There is a low number of cases in some areas and far higher prevalence in others. Can we improve the quality assurance in the system to ensure that all local authorities meet a minimum standard? There seems to be no way of ensuring consistency.

That is a fair question. That assurance should be available to parents in all parts of the country. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education could explore those questions in individual educational settings and could carry out a thematic inspection to look at how those issues are pursued. I am happy to take away the question about consistency of approach across local authorities and to discuss it with the chief inspector of education.

I have rehearsed this point already: the Morgan review was not something that the Government did to local authorities. We commissioned the review jointly with COSLA and with the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland. I hope that that assures Mr Mundell and the committee that the Government and local authorities share a joint interest in ensuring that the legitimate concerns that he has expressed are properly addressed. I want that to be the case.

I would be interested in hearing the outcome of that conversation—as, I am sure, would other committee members.

An additional support for learning implementation group was set up in response to the Morgan review, and it was to meet every three months. There are published minutes for its meetings in October 2019 and January 2020, but there seems to be nothing further. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether other meetings have taken place and, if so, whether the minutes are available?

I regret that there has been a bit of an interruption to those meetings because of the demands of Covid-19. I understand that there was a further meeting, the minutes of which have probably not yet been published. I will ensure that those are made available to the committee.

I have a couple of questions before we finish. When we took evidence on the Morgan report last week, I asked about the use of the Enquire service in encouraging parents—I have often encouraged parents to use Enquire—to seek support across the board. I asked specifically about advocacy, and the parent organisations at the committee said that they could get advice but not advocacy. However, on the front page of the Enquire website there is an offer of advocacy for 12 to 15-year-olds. I would be interested in finding out, either today or in a written response, how effective that advocacy is for young people and the level of take-up. I would also be interested in the information around that. Are young people being made aware that such a service is available to them should they wish to engage with their school about their needs?

I can definitely provide some information on that question in writing. Enquire does tremendous work in raising awareness. I had better check the detail of the advocacy scope and role that it offers.

One of the points that Angela Morgan makes strongly is that the whole policy area would benefit from being addressed in a collaborative environment. Such collaboration should mean the active engagement of children and families in the process. That would significantly strengthen the process from a child rights perspective. I would be happy to respond to your specific point in writing, convener.

Finally—and I hope this is not too philosophical a point to be making at this late stage in the meeting—we talked about rhetoric and reality, but would we benefit from changing some of the rhetoric and language used around additional support needs? We know how many more young people are being identified as what we now call ASN, and we now know that bereavement, caring responsibilities, being in care and other issues have an impact on the support that a young person might need. It strikes me that it is just the human condition and that perhaps we should be talking about education and learning entitlements for people and dropping the idea of something “additional” that is provided to some sort of mythical child who might never need support at any point in their education. That might help us in fully adopting the GIRFEC ethos.

There is everything philosophical and fundamental about that point. I come at this from the point of view that getting it right for every child is an important philosophy as well as a fundamental right. If we got it right for every child, we would enable children to have much more fulfilling, happier lives, and we would also reduce the strain and stress carried by some of our fellow citizens as they wrestle with the needs of their children.

I would much rather we had a discussion about getting it right for every child because I would rather that we were meeting the needs of all children properly—that is what getting it right for every child is all about. If we were able to do that and work through the different stages that I have talked about—the engagement with health visitors, midwives and early learning—we could do that. The ethos of universal early learning and childcare from the age of three upwards is designed to give children the very best start in life. That is an important ethos and should be the foundation of our education and care system for children.

Thank you very much, cabinet secretary, for talking to us on both issues this morning.

11:10 Meeting continued in private until 12:03.