Meeting of the Parliament 02 February 2016
First, I thank George Adam and others for their sensitive presentation of the issues. I understand their concerns regarding the impact of speech, language and communication needs on children’s learning.
As many in the chamber will be aware, I have been keen to use the legislation to focus on the particular educational challenges associated with poverty. Clearly, many of the children who face such challenges will require communication support in order to achieve their full potential.
In that context, I fully expect education authorities and ministers, working in partnership with speech and language specialists, to consider how best to support communication provisions when seeking to meet their respective “due regard” duties under the bill.
That point will be teased out in the statutory guidance and I am happy to commit to ensuring that communication organisations such as the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists have the opportunity to influence what is said.
I hope that that provides Mr Adam with at least some of the assurance he is seeking through amendments 23, 28, 34 to 37, 40 and 41.
It follows that it would not be appropriate to extend the duties at section A1 in the way proposed. We have of course included a regulation-making power to allow us to extend those duties at a later date, and I remain open to discussion about how that power is exercised in the future. I therefore cannot support amendments 17, 19 and 20.
We are committed to enhancing the communication environment in Scotland. We understand the connections between children having a good communication environment and developing good speech and language skills and their educational attainment. That is why we have taken steps to ensure that all children have those needs identified and met.
We have ensured that speech and language is considered as part of the assessment of child development through the 27 to 30-month review.
We have put getting it right for every child onto a statutory footing and the additional support for learning legislation is about making sure that any barriers to learning are quickly identified and overcome.
We have taken steps to promote partnership working between allied health professionals, including speech and language therapists, and education professionals.
More recently, that issue has been considered in the context of the Scottish attainment challenge, with two local authorities and a number of schools receiving funding for speech and language therapists. Those include Dundee City Council, which has recruited 3 therapists as part of its challenge improvement plan. The council works closely with Tayside NHS Board, which provides additional funding to extend the reach of the speech and language therapy team.
Only last week we launched the “Ready to Act” document, which sets out the contribution of allied health services to the wellbeing of children across Scotland.
I say this to reassure Mr Adam and other members that we are paying close attention to the issues raised by amendment 17 and the other amendments in group 1. Furthermore, I believe that those examples demonstrate the progress that we can make within the current legislative framework. Given that, I cannot support amendments 24 and 26.
We can always do more to ensure that an inclusive communication approach is in place and working well. It may be helpful if we were to bring together our partners to explore how we might build on the good work already being done. Such an exercise has the potential to deliver many of the benefits that Mr Adam is seeking to achieve under amendment 25 through the establishment of a speech, language and communication strategy. I give the commitment to convene such a summit.
I hope that those comments provide some reassurance and, in the light of the commitments that I have made, I ask Mr Adam to withdraw amendment 17.