Hansard

I also shall be brief. There is overwhelming unanimity in the chamber about the bill. We are now into discussions about the detail of how the bill will proceed through stages 2 and 3.

I am glad to have the support of Frank McAveety on the issue of Sewel motions. It was quite a relief to have his support, although that was an unusual event. The bill is an example of why Sewel motions should be used sparingly, although the subject matter could have been dealt with through the use of a Sewel motion. By introducing the bill, not only has the Executive given the chamber an opportunity to debate the issues and members an opportunity to lodge amendments, but it has given civic Scotland and individuals an opportunity to make representations and to be heard. That could not have happened if the matter had been dealt with through the use of a Sewel motion. The bill is a good example of legislation that should go through the parliamentary process, although that may take time and effort. The Executive should not deal with such matters by giving away our right to legislate.

Three key issues in the bill have clearly emerged during the debate: demand; will and intention to meet that demand; and resources to underpin the ability to meet that demand. I commend the minister on her speech, much of which I agree with. However, I believe that she underestimates the demand that will exist. By definition, parents of children who have special educational needs are usually very involved in their children's education and acutely aware of the difficulties that their children have.

I suspect that the bill, which will be warmly welcomed, will also mean that parents have very high expectations from early on. Although it will be necessary to phase in the support that is available, let us not alienate parents by doing so in a way that appears to be penny-pinching. I am glad that the detail of the finance indicates that money that is additional to the £9 million is available. There will be significant financial demands on the public purse for schools. Mr Jenkins has indicated some of those.

A considerable amount of work is required to make a building or buildings suitable once a strategy has been produced. I mentioned a lift in a primary school that I know. Many other schools—perhaps those that have old buildings—will require considerable adaptation. I hope that when the deputy minister responds, he will take on board the fact that demand will be considerable.

Teachers and those who run the schools must have the will to make sure that the bill works. By and large, that will is there. The minister was absolutely right to say that mainstreaming cannot be imposed on schools. I was a member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee that undertook a report on special educational needs. Mainstreaming is a hope, an encouragement and a way in which we want people to look at education. However, it cannot be a demand, because children are all different and schools are all different.

Teachers must be helped to understand how mainstreaming works. For some children it will never work; for others it will work very well. We must proselytise for the bill within schools, to persuade teachers to take the chances and make the extra effort that will enable children to go into schools, to mainstream and to have the facilities in those schools that they need.

If we can understand the demand, if we can recognise the need to create the will within schools and if we can provide the resources, the bill will make a huge difference over a period of time.

Unfortunately, the issue of pupil records represents another example of bad drafting somewhere else producing a problem that requires resolution by the Parliament. That has become something of a hobby-horse of mine, and the deputy minister has suffered as a result of that in committee. We must look seriously at drafting. The fact that we can legislate does not mean that we have to do so. When we legislate, we must do it properly.

In the primary legislation that we pass and, increasingly, in Scottish statutory instruments, problems are becoming legion. The case of a statutory instrument that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee recently considered has become almost farcical. We must examine drafting, which is not a party-political issue, but one of good governance. We must have the ability to draft bills properly.

The bill represents an ideal opportunity for the Parliament and its committees—Kate Maclean referred to her committee—to work together for the good of people in Scotland who have a real need. That has been the nature of the debate and I am sure that it will be the nature of the stage 2 proceedings. I ask the Executive to keep it that way. Let us be constructive about the bill and let us not stand on our dignity on the drafting of amendments. I support the bill.