Chamber and committees

I am relaxed about the term “named person”, but there we are.

The purpose of what we are doing is not to argue about the financial memorandum. The point is that, without the necessary resources within local authorities and other partner organisations, this well-intentioned legislation—that is not a glib description; I mean that the legislation is properly well-intentioned and thought through—will not drive a difference, and there will be a prioritisation of needs, just as there currently is in relation to ASN, with only 1 to 2 per cent of young people who qualify for a co-ordinated support plan actually getting one. There is a concern that, if the bill passes, only the most complex disabilities that young people have will be on the radar of schools, local authorities and other players that would be involved in the provision of a transition plan, and we will end up with a similar picture to the one that pertains in relation to co-ordinated support plans. Do you think that that is a reasonable concern?

It is very brief, because the thrust of what I want to talk about is on the deputy convener’s line of questioning.

Bill Scott helpfully mentioned the broad definition under the Equality Act 2010. He mentioned dyslexia, and I think that he was making the point that all disabilities have impacts but, with a more profound and complex mix of disabilities, there might be a greater need. I do not want to be disparaging, but dyslexia might not necessarily be at that level. However, in the guidance on the Equality Act 2010, dyslexia is specifically mentioned as qualifying. Mr Scott, you talked about more profound and less profound disabilities—I am paraphrasing, so I apologise and I am not trying to put words in your mouth—and you mentioned dyslexia as potentially being less impactful. However, dyslexia is specifically a qualifying disability under the Equality Act 2010. Will you say a little more about that?

The person might say that they do not think that they progressed as smoothly in school as they might have done because of barriers in relation to dyslexia. I think that almost everyone with dyslexia would say that as a matter of course, and they would have a strong case for doing so. Therefore, it could be argued that everyone with dyslexia would qualify for a transitions plan. Would that be a reasonable assumption to make?

Thank you. No interrogation is likely to be easy.

Convener, you will move me on if I am taking up too much time, as I have a lot of questions to ask—

I hope that it will be just one question, convener.

During the discussion—which has been fascinating—we have been talking about whether there is a mechanism to make sure that the young people who are already entitled to good-quality provision get the transitions to which they are entitled or whether, as Scott Richardson-Read suggested, the bill would open the door to a much broader range of young people who might not have that entitlement, and whether there is a tension between those who are not getting what they are already entitled to and those who would become entitled under the bill.

If the bill were to be passed, would clear guidance need to be given that local authorities and other bodies would have to prioritise based on the resources available? In other words, might the bill give people an entitlement on paper, but one that would never be realised in practice unless there is a substantial increase in resource?

Thank you, cabinet secretary. There is a lot in that. Without seeing it written down, we, as a committee, cannot really analyse it. Will the Government be absolutely clear where the baseline is on which it will be judged in terms of maintaining and increasing teaching numbers and teaching support assistants? Will that be crystal clear when we get that information?

I am looking at teacher numbers. I can see in Glasgow City Council that—thankfully—from 2021 to 2022 more than 100 new teachers were appointed, so there is positive news in Glasgow. However, overall, there was a 0.2 per cent dip in teacher numbers across all schools in Scotland.

I am not quite sure what the baseline is for judging progress, though, so I refer you, cabinet secretary, to the non-recurring funds that were given to local authorities in July 2020, August 2020 and March 2021. They came to £140 million and were for more teachers and teaching assistants, at the height of Covid, to do all that we could to support schools and education. When we look at the recurring funds, we see that the total is roughly the same.

Do we have data on how many teachers and teaching assistants were employed following the non-recurring funding in those three periods? That would allow us to compare where we were before the recurring funds were given and how the non-recurring funds were spent for that particular funding year.

We look forward to getting those figures, which the committee will want to scrutinise.

In its early days, the committee had a discussion about schools and local authorities employing teachers and assistants on temporary contracts as quickly as they could to support education during Covid. It was recognised that they were not necessarily the right education facility, with the right skill set or where you would want them to be going forward. What monitoring does the Government do in relation to temporary contracts that were awarded at the height of Covid, and where we will be in that regard going forward?

You have made that point really well. This might be absolutely the right thing to do, but we do not want to give people rights in principle if the reality is that those rights can never be exercised without a substantial increase in resources when it is not clear where those would come from.

Rebecca Williams and Tracey Francis, do you share that concern?