Current Petitions

PE1381 is on education provision for children and young people who are absent from school because of illness. Members have a note from the clerk, which is paper 10. I understand that Ken Macintosh has a particular interest in the petition—perhaps he can give us his views on it.

Thank you, convener, and thanks to members for allowing me to join them. The committee has a particularly busy and varied agenda.I have some knowledge of the work of Action for Sick Children (Scotland), which lodged the petition. It is an excellent group of individuals who raise a number of issues about children’s welfare, not only their education. I have a particular constituency interest and constituency experience of a couple of cases in which children have perhaps not received the level of educational support on entering hospital that they might have expected and which we might have expected them to receive.I thank the committee for the work that it has done on the petition. The response that the Government has given to the committee is summarised in paragraph 12 of the note from the clerk. It states:“In conclusion, the Scottish Government stated that it was content that there was a clear framework of legislation, policy and guidance in place which protected the education of children and young people absent from school through ill-health.”That legislation and statutory framework may be in place, but the reality is that that is not what children are experiencing. Across Scotland, the picture varies hugely from local authority to local authority and from hospital to hospital. Some hospitals employ their own tutors directly, while others have a commissioning arrangement. In some cases, as in my own authority, the situation has changed and it is up to the pupil’s school to meet their educational needs.The best comparison for committee members is to think of these children as having additional support needs. The difficulties that they face are similar to those that I am sure many of you have come across in your constituency casework, where the needs of the children are not being met at all and where, in fact, the families end up in a battle with either the hospital or the local authority.I remind members that these families and children are usually battling with a very serious illness—sometimes a chronic or long-term condition—so they are extremely worried and vulnerable. On top of that, for the child to fall behind in their school work and fall behind their peers adds to their ill-health and certainly does not improve their welfare.I recommend option 1 in the note from the clerk, but I suggest that the committee also ask for some sort of assessment. The Government says that it does not monitor the situation, but perhaps the committee could ask the Government whether it is willing to assess the current state of provision. Unless we agree and accept that there is a problem, it is difficult to address it.

I refer members to an additional paper from Andrea Auld, who has already contacted me. She resides in the Highlands and Islands and I have spoken to her. I have yet to follow up that contact, but I am pleased that she has sent the e-mail to the committee. Members can read it, but I will quote the last couple of sentences. It states:“Our whole family has also endured unnecessary levels of stress as a result. Clearly the current system needs to be revised as the framework of legislation and guidance, together with GIRFEC”—getting it right for every child—“is not working for children in the Highlands who are absent from school through ill-health.”There is a longer story, which I unfortunately do not have time to inform the committee about, but I want to flag up the letter.

We should ask the Government how often the provision has been used, although I know from our work on what became the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2009 in the previous parliamentary session and from work before then that it is never used. One case might have arisen, but I am not sure whether it was concluded. The power exists in theory but is never or very rarely used in practice.

That is a good point. It is easy for different local authorities to have different versions of provision. Sometimes, guidance provides greater clarity, but authorities always argue that guidance is not the law. My experience is that many such disputes go to court, when sheriffs rule on individual interpretations. However, Mark McDonald is right that we need further clarity.Do other members wish to contribute? If not, do members agree—I am sorry; John Wilson wishes to speak.

A sample of one authority from each region with a variety of urban and rural authorities would help, as would information from an islands council—I will not forget that.Do we agree to continue the petition in line with the clerk’s proposal, to pick up the points that members including Ken Macintosh have made and to follow John Wilson’s suggestion of a sample? That is a useful way of seeing the state of play in relation to legislation.Members indicated agreement.

I thank Ken Macintosh again for coming to the meeting, although he is staying with us for the next petition.