Education (Additional Support for Learning) Bill

Speech delivered on Wed 4th Mar 2009

I join in the congratulations to Anne McLaughlin on her maiden speech. She did a good service this afternoon by hitting a particular nail strongly on the head. The issue is one with which a number of members have had dealings.

The Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 is something of an old friend to me, as Ken Macintosh will recollect. Given that I was the convener of the Education Committee when the bill passed through the Parliament, it was perhaps appropriate that I went on to play a part in implementing it as the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People. As we tend to see, things have a habit of coming round again. I have learned in the Parliament that 10 per cent of the challenge is to pass a good law and 90 per cent is to make it work effectively on the ground. All members will share in that experience.

On the whole, as Helen Eadie rightly said, the 2004 act was an aspirational piece of legislation. The bill was well conceived and well prepared by Peter Peacock, who was the Minister for Education and Young People at the time, and carefully considered by the Education Committee. The act has been supported by significant funding and has made a step change on the ground in both culture and practice by effecting support for young people with additional support needs. However, as members across the chamber have said, a number of the practical issues on the ground that we wrestled with during the passage of the bill have led to patchy practice across Scotland. The challenge remains to spread good practice to bring the standard throughout the country up to the level of the best. The situation is still more mixed than it ought to be.

I have some important caveats to make by way of introduction, which echo the experience that we had at the outset. The first is the issue of individual rights, such as the right to appeal to the tribunal and the right to access mediation. All of that is all very well in its place-it is important and necessary-but we have to be careful that the resource that ought to go to sorting everything out at the beginning is not sucked into procedures that do not advance the educational cause in which we are all interested. Similarly, all the stuff to do with definitions and so on is all very well, but we have to embed the things that we want to see in practice in schools. Ultimately, co-ordinated support plans and all the rest are not the most necessary of measures. They are often perceived to be the drivers, but they are not the principal vehicle in that regard. Processes and facilities need to be put in place to support young people who need support.

The bill picks up on a number of issues that have emerged in practice, and I am happy to support the provisions to address those. I also welcome what the minister said about lodging amendments at stage 2.

I have a couple of other points to make on the bill. First, given Lord Wheatley's decision in the case of SC v City of Edinburgh Council last year, we need to reinstate the concept of additional support outside the classroom as intrinsic to the additional support that is required under the bill. As we know from what he said today and in previous debates, the minister is favourable to the proposal. I hope that he will commit to lodging effective amendments on the subject. I have always thought that the school community should be regarded in the round. It is the whole lot. Obviously, it is the teachers and other educational staff, but it is also the nursery, the breakfast club, the after-school club, the school clubs, and the other bodies that work to make the school a wider and richer educational experience.

Additional support needs are an important issue for children who suffer from autism and require extra social support. As Anne McLaughlin said, the issue is important, too, for children who are not native English speakers and require extra help outside school. Indeed, in other situations, psychological and speech and language support is also required.

There are financial implications. Some of the matters that relate to additional support for learning overlap with health and other services. However, at the end of the day, the intention of the 2004 act was for children with additional support needs to get the educational and social support that they need as individuals in a way that is seamlessly backed by all services. The term "seamlessly backed" was at the heart of what we tried to do in the 2004 act and it remains at the heart of issues that members have raised in the debate to do with how the act is working in practice.

Another issue that I want to raise is transition to work and further and higher education. The 2004 act put a strong emphasis on advance planning and building on successful arrangements at school as the young person moves forward into another, more adult sphere. Margo MacDonald highlighted the situation of young people between the ages of 16 and 18-and perhaps even beyond that-who have been in care. We need to consider specific arrangements to carry them forward, because they are the most deserving and needy group.

It is disturbing that HMIE reported that

"in most authorities, staff did not consult meaningfully with children and young people."

Some people suggest-and the committee supports-a reference to the tribunal in such situations. That may be helpful, but I am not sure that, ultimately, it is what is needed. The key is building into the ethos of each school a focus on transition planning that works, because a remedy after the event is not the answer. The issue might bear close study by a ministerial working group or something of that sort, especially in light of the challenges that are posed by the current economic crisis, which bears most heavily on young people with disabilities or support needs.

My final point relates to out-of-area placements. It is not surprising that the issue has arisen in the committee, given Ken Macintosh's particular interest in the East Renfrewshire-Glasgow situation. The bill deals with out-of-area placements but, as far as I can see, it does not resolve totally the issue of whether the receiving local authority can be compensated for costs, which can be quite significant for smaller councils, in particular. There needs to be a clear rule on the matter to avoid fractious disputes between councils, which are expensive, among other things, and cause worry for families who are caught in the middle. It is ludicrous that we should spend public money on such arguments. If I recall correctly, at one time there were 18 pending cases on the issue between Glasgow City Council and East Renfrewshire Council. I may be exaggerating slightly, but there were quite a few.

The principle of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 has stood the test of time and the act has made a substantial difference for many young people. The bill provides some helpful tweaking, and I hope that the minister can give the chamber comfort on some of the other issues that have been raised. However, as legislators, we should never lose sight of the fact that at the centre of these matters are individual children and mums and dads with anxieties and sensitivities about their children. Many of those mums and dads have sometimes had to batter their heads against brick walls to get things moving forward. Our job is to improve their situation. In that spirit, I back the general principles of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill.

To read the debate in full please click on the link below:

Related Link:

Education (Additional Support for Learnng) Bill.