Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill: Stage 2
Agenda item 4 is our second and final day of stage 2 consideration of the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill. I welcome again the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, who will speak on the Executive's behalf. He is supported by Deirdre Watt, the bill team leader; Neil Ross, from the office of the solicitor to the Scottish Executive; and Donald Henderson, whose title I do not have in front of me, although I am sure that it is very important. I remind members that officials cannot speak in the debate but can advise the minister.
Members should have a copy of the bill, the second marshalled list and the second list of groupings. Several amendments that we debated at our previous meeting have still to be disposed of and we will deal with them as we reach them on the marshalled list.
Section 12—Duties of education authority to parents generally
Amendment 25, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, is in a group on its own. Andrew Welsh will move the amendment on Fiona Hyslop's behalf.
The bill's core aim is to increase parental involvement generally. One development is the introduction of a duty on ministers to support and encourage parental involvement. Amendment 25 deals with education authorities' responsibility to address the factors that discourage parents' involvement in a school generally and in their children's education specifically. It would introduce in statute a more proactive and focused approach for education authorities in identifying and tackling barriers to effective parental involvement.
The amendment would provide ballast in support of the bill. Without it, the danger is the extension of a tick-box mentality under which, as long as a parent council exists, some councils could claim to be promoting parental involvement. The best councils will proactively identify and tackle barriers to parental involvement. The amendment would ensure that every council does that.
I move amendment 25.
I support amendment 25, which is important. In dealing with the bill, the committee has discussed the dislocated or disconnected groups of parents and children in schools. The amendment would enable and encourage local authorities to consider carefully how they structure the set-up in schools. It will give secondary schools the opportunity to be more imaginative in involving parents. It is important to provide for that encouragement in the bill; otherwise, I fear that the scenario will remain as it always has been and that the bill will not improve the situation and will not bring in those parents who are not engaged in education but who we badly want and need to get engaged. For those reasons, I hope that the committee will support the amendment.
I am sympathetic to the reasoning behind amendment 25. We certainly want to remove all the factors that would discourage parental involvement. However, I have the feeling that the amendment is unnecessary. The whole ethos of the bill is to encourage parental involvement and to remove factors that discourage parental involvement. Trying to spell that out in the proposed manner would not help with understanding the bill.
The bill will do two things: first, it will improve the method of parental representation; and it will improve parental involvement. We are placing a duty on local authorities always to have in mind the improvement of parental involvement. Singling out the issue as the amendment would do would not help matters; it might confuse them.
Like Ken Macintosh, I am sympathetic to the sentiment behind amendment 25. However, I am not quite sure what local authorities would be expected to do. Some of the factors that discourage parental involvement might lie outwith the remit of the local authority. The wording of the amendment sounds quite good, but I am not certain what additional responsibility the education authority would have if the amendment were agreed to.
I am grateful for those comments. Like committee members, I recognise the intent behind the amendment in Fiona Hyslop's name and I sympathise with the desires that lie behind it. I fully agree that an education authority should take steps to address all the factors that serve to inhibit parents or to discourage them from taking an active interest in their children's education and learning and in the life of the school. Indeed, as Ken Macintosh said, that is what the bill is all about, and sections 1 and 2 set out duties in stronger and more general language than that used in amendment 25. The bill will require education authorities actively to promote parental involvement in its widest sense and to have an active strategy in place to develop it.
The amendment downgrades the importance of section 2 on strategies for parental involvement. It seeks to amend section 12, which is about ensuring that education authorities, head teachers and school staff are available to give advice and information to parents about their children's education. The amendment seeks to introduce a wider duty in respect of the factors that act against parental involvement, but that would be better addressed in section 2, which puts a duty on authorities to prepare a strategy for parental involvement. Far from encouraging a tick-box mentality, that is a much more proactive approach than has existed before, which very much takes on board the issues to which Andrew Welsh drew attention.
The committee will note that Executive amendment 42 will require ministers to issue guidance in respect of education authorities' strategies for parental involvement. I hope that it reassures Andrew Welsh, and indeed Rosemary Byrne, to know that we will ensure that the guidance addresses the need for strategies to take account of all factors that discourage or inhibit parental involvement in their children's education and learning. That will include factors arising from disadvantage or inequality. There is no real argument about the objective of the exercise; it is just a question of how things are done.
With those assurances, I hope that Andrew Welsh will feel able to withdraw amendment 25. If not, I ask the committee to resist the amendment on the ground that it is unnecessary.
I appreciate the sympathetic comments that have been made about amendment 25. I am a bit unhappy that the amendment has been described as "unnecessary" and that actions should apparently not be spelled out. The key words in the amendment are "in their judgement", which put the onus on local authorities to identify the measures that could be taken to prevent action that discourages parental involvement. The amendment seeks to give local authorities the scope and flexibility to encourage positive action on any factors that would discourage parental involvement. In fact, instead of downgrading the bill's existing wording—as the minister claimed it does—amendment 25 supports and supplements its provisions. After all, we all support parental involvement and want these provisions to be implemented. As a result, I will press amendment 25.
The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Against
Baker, Mr Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 25 disagreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
After section 12
Amendment 26 not moved.
Section 13—Headteacher's report to Parent Council, Combined Parent Council or Parent Forum
Amendment 27 not moved.
Section 13 agreed to.
The question is, that section 15 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
What about agreeing section 14, while we are at it?
Apparently, section 14 does not need to be agreed to because it has not been amended.
Section 15 agreed to.
Section 16—Establishment etc of Combined Parent Council
Amendments 39, 40 and 41 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
Section 19—Guidance
Amendment 42 moved—[Robert Brown].
Amendment 42A not moved.
Amendment 42 agreed to.
Amendment 43 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
Section 20—Interpretation
Amendment 28 not moved.
Section 20 agreed to.
Sections 21 to 23 agreed to.
Schedule
Repeals
Amendment 45, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 57 and 44.
Section 87B of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, as inserted by the Self-Governing Schools (Scotland) Act 1989, states that education authorities must not exclude anyone who is not employed by the authority from consideration for appointment as a teacher. The provision was intended to protect teachers in the sector from being excluded from appointment to an advertised local authority post.
However, as current employment legislation already ensures open and fair competition for advertised posts, retaining section 87B could create a tension between existing legislation and the flexible and modern appointments system that we have proposed and that our key stakeholders have told us that they want to see.
Section 87A of the 1980 act, which amendment 57, in the name of Rosemary Byrne, would repeal, deals with the appointment of principal teachers. The section is currently suspended and it is our declared policy intention to repeal it. Many of our key stakeholders, in particular local authorities and teacher unions, raised the issue in response to the consultation on head teacher appointments. Therefore, although the issue does not concern the involvement of parents, given how the bill has evolved, we have the opportunity to repeal the section and we are happy to accept amendment 57. It will be necessary to lodge a consequential amendment relating to section 50 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, under which section 87A is presently suspended. We will deal with that by lodging a tidying-up amendment at stage 3.
Amendment 44 is a consequential amendment to the long title of the bill, which reflects the repeal of section 87B, and now section 87A, and the impact on appointment procedures for all teachers, not just head teachers and deputes.
I move amendment 45.
Section 87B of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 states, with regard to the selection of teachers:
"Without prejudice to section 7 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (which provides for the appointment of staff of local authorities to be made on merit) and to any requirement in any other enactment as to the considerations to which they may or may not have regard in making appointments, an education authority who are considering an appointment of a teacher shall not exclude any person from consideration for such an appointment on the ground that—
(a) he is not employed by that education authority; or
(b) he is not employed by a particular employer or class of employer; or
(c) he is not currently employed as a teacher."
It seems to me that the provisions of section 87B are still valid. The minister talked about tensions, but if he removes that whole section, he will be introducing a situation that is too restrictive.
That goes back to the point that I made. We are talking about a particular section that sets out specific requirements, which are no longer necessary because of the general arrangements in employment law.
We are trying to introduce a flexible arrangement for the appointment of head teachers, which can be altered and brought up to date by regulation, if necessary, in accordance with changing requirements of the standard for headship, without having to pass an entirely new bill. I do not imagine that section 87B of the 1980 act would cause an issue in most instances, but it goes against the grain of the flexible arrangements for appointments that we require. Against that background, and given that the provisions are in any event unnecessary, we request that the committee agrees that the section should be repealed.
Amendment 45 agreed to.
Amendment 57 moved—[Ms Rosemary Byrne]—and agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Section 14—Procedures for appointment of headteacher or deputy and participation of a Parent Council
I now remember that we did not deal with section 14 before, because we agreed to deal with it last.
Amendment 14, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, is grouped with amendment 58.
Amendment 14 would ensure that there is no diminution in the statutory rights of parents in relation to the appointment of senior staff. It provides for the setting out in the bill of procedures for parental representation in the appointment of head teachers and deputy heads, with parent councils and local authorities represented equally on appointment panels.
Bill McGregor of the Headteachers Association of Scotland said at the Education Committee on 14 December:
"The bill sets out to improve parental involvement and to encourage parents to join in the life of the school, so I would have thought that partnership would be implicit when it came to employing and appointing senior staff. My experience in 15 years as a head teacher was that parents thought it absolutely vital to be involved in that. One of the ironies of the bill is that it actually presents an opportunity to reduce the role of parents. I would find that very difficult to live with."—[Official Report, Education Committee, 14 December 2005; c 2917.]
Amendment 14 is based on the provisions of the existing School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988; it provides for the chair to be a nomination of the education authority.
I am glad to support amendment 58, which is entirely sensible. It will give parent councils the right to seek advice on the appointment of head teachers and will place a duty on authorities to ensure that members of a parent council have access to appropriate training on the appointment of senior staff.
The appointment of a head teacher or deputy head teacher is of crucial importance to a school and its pupils, so it is desirable that parents, who may neither be education professionals nor have experience of the statutory framework, are given training and advice to support them in forming their views.
Given that I support the minister's amendment 58, I wonder whether it is too much to hope that he will support mine.
I move amendment 14.
We will find out in a second. I call the minister to speak to amendment 58 and the other amendment in the group.
Partnership is implicit in what the Executive is trying to do in all aspects of the bill. However, partnership is wider that that between parents and the local authority; professional interests are also involved. Partnership is endemic to what we are trying to do. Parents are and will continue to be involved in the fullest way in the appointments process.
As part of the consultation on the bill, we asked about the overarching principles of replacing and modernising the appointments process for senior staff and retaining parental involvement in the process. We then undertook further consultation in November, when we asked what the finer details of the appointments process should look like. Our intention is that such detail should be set out in regulations rather than in primary legislation and we have provided for that in the bill. As I have said about other Executive amendments, that allows processes to adapt more easily to wider change in the educational agenda, including changes to the standard for headship.
We appreciate that representation on appointment panels is an important issue for parents. However, as the committee will have seen from the consultation analysis and our response, most key stakeholders do not want to see a return to the kind of prescriptive legislation that we have at the moment, which can quickly become out of step with changes in educational practice. Such prescription can also cause unnecessary delays to the appointments process.
In our response to the consultation on head teacher appointments, I think that we hit the nail on the head when we said on the make-up of the appointment panel:
"This is a complex area, we believe it is essential to strike a balance between the different communities of interest: parents who know the needs of their communities; educational professionals who know most about the demands of running modern schools; and the local authority who carry statutory responsibilities both as employer and in relation to the delivery of high quality education in their area. We believe appointment panels are stronger when they contain these different perspectives, and when members are focussed on their single common interest – to collectively secure for the school the best possible candidate."
I hope that that statement of intent is one that committee members will find compelling and attractive. However, our view is that the Executive should not prescribe detailed composition of panels from the centre. We want, through regulations, to be able to optimise the involvement of parents at all stages of the appointments process—in the sift as well as in interview procedures.
On amendment 58, I echo what Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said. We recognise that training can be helpful for members of parent councils. We considered putting a general requirement for training into the bill but, on balance, we came to the view that it would be wrong to overformalise the position by suggesting that training is a prerequisite of being a member of a council, which we know some parents might find off-putting. It will be for parent councils to decide on what is appropriate for them and to agree local arrangements for training.
When it comes to involvement in the formal process of appointments, we consider that there is a real need for specialist training. As the committee will see from our responses to the consultation on head teacher and deputy head teacher appointments, the need for training, guidance and guidelines to be provided to all parents who are involved in the appointments process was a common thread throughout all responses.
We have lodged amendment 58 to ensure that education authorities are required to make adequate training available to members of parent councils, or persons acting on their behalf, who are involved in the consideration and selection of head and deputy head teachers. Our whole approach in the bill and in the consultation on appointments is designed to ensure that the best possible candidates are put in place and that all stakeholder interests can contribute properly to the process. Our aim is to have something that everyone can sign up to—there is often consensus in appointment procedures in any event. Obviously, that is the best way forward.
I ask the committee to reject amendment 14, as it goes in a different direction, which would be inflexible and out of date in comparison with the new requirements that we seek to introduce through the bill.
On amendment 58, I hope that the committee will be unanimous, as were the consultation responses, in accepting the need for and desirability of training for parents who apply to sit on a board to appoint a head teacher. That would be a valuable addition.
On amendment 14, although I can see where Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is coming from—as the bill is all about promoting parental involvement, and we want parents to be involved in the appointment of head teachers—I feel that we have tried to strike a balance between the flexibility that the bill offers and the rather rigid and overly formal system that the school boards imposed, and that a return to the school boards system would not be welcome. There is a huge variety of different schools across Scotland and to impose one system for the appointment of head teachers for all schools would not be desirable or in the best interests of parents at all those schools.
My experience is that, where parents are involved in the appointment of a head teacher, it is highly unlikely that a panel with a majority of professionals or local authority representatives would overrule the wishes of parents if the parent representatives on the appointment panel felt strongly against an appointment. I do not think that we need to build in so formal and restrictive a policy as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton suggests in amendment 14 with his proposal for a certain level of parental representation. I suggest that the committee should reject amendment 14 but accept amendment 58.
Like Ken Macintosh and the minister, I feel that amendment 14 runs contrary to the spirit of the bill, although I can understand why Lord James feels that parents should be significantly involved at the final stage. I also have to disagree with the suggestion that parental involvement in the appointment of senior staff would somehow be diminished, because if parents are involved in the sift, they will have increased involvement. I have been involved in the appointment of head teachers in the past and I know that the parents on the school board who came to the final interview got the shortlist that we had decided and had had no input into how that shortlist was compiled. I think that parents will now have more involvement and that if they are involved earlier, the likelihood of conflict at the final stage will be reduced.
I thank the minister for his reply, but my view is that it is important, and preferable, to have the arrangements in the bill rather than to deal with them by some other means. I believe in that principle, so I will press amendment 14. However, I will also support amendment 58.
The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Against
Baker, Mr Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
The result of the amendment is: For 1, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 14 disagreed to.
Amendment 58 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Amendment 15, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, is grouped with amendment 29.
Amendment 15 is supported by the Headteachers Association of Scotland. Its purpose is to make certain that a head teacher is appointed to one school only. It is my view that the head teacher is vital to the ethos and effective running of the school, so amendment 15 seeks to ensure that heads will not be employed as cluster managers of a number of schools.
Bill McGregor of the Headteachers Association of Scotland said in the Education Committee on 14 December 2005:
"I am concerned that the flexibility that is implicit in the bill might almost become a form of slackness."—[Official Report, Education Committee, 14 December 2005; c 2911.]
He went on to say:
"If what you mean is the appointment of a head teacher to an authority followed by placement in one of the authority's schools, we do not believe that that is good either in respect of the best use of management or, which is much more important in this forum, in respect of parental involvement in selection and representation. Parents want to know who will be the head teacher of their school rather than of a school. The Headteachers Association of Scotland opposes that concept."—[Official Report, Education Committee, 14 December 2005; c 2920.]
I agree with the spirit of amendment 29, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, not least because it addresses the concerns of the Headteachers Association of Scotland. Interestingly, it is indirectly supported by Bill McGregor, who said on 14 December:
"If what you mean is the appointment of a head teacher to an authority followed by placement in one of the authority's schools, we do not believe that that is good either in respect of the best use of management or, which is much more important in this forum, in respect of parental involvement in selection and representation. Parents want to know who will be the head teacher of their school rather than of a school. The Headteachers Association of Scotland opposes that concept."—[Official Report, Education Committee, 14 December 2005; c 2920.]
I repeat that quote because I believe that it is absolutely in line with amendment 29 as well as with amendment 15.
I move amendment 15.
Amendment 29 reinforces the point that has been made by Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, which is that appointments should be made to a specific school and that education authorities should consult the parent council about long-term redeployment of senior management to another school.
Transfers can and should happen for good education and management reasons—for example, to deal with long-term illness or death, or to provide extra support to another school. However, the committee was concerned about the evidence from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which suggested that COSLA would like to move to a position in which head and deputy head teachers were contracted to be employed not in a particular school, but in the education authority as a whole, to be redeployed at the will of the council without any recourse to the parent council. It is not just initial appointments that should have parent council involvement; long-term transfer, for example, should—at the very least and even as a matter of courtesy—be subject to consultation of the parent council on the implications for the school.
I support the principle that appointments should be made to specific schools rather than to the education authority.
I understand why the head teacher organisations were concerned about the evidence that we received from COSLA and from the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, which seems to want to extend the situation beyond what exists at the moment. However, we must reflect on the fact that the bill will not change the current situation with regard to the transfer of head teachers and will not introduce what COSLA has asked for.
My concern about amendments 15 and 29 is that they might prevent secondment of head teachers. The secondment of an experienced head teacher for a year or so into the central organisation of the education authority can be very beneficial in terms of development of policy, if the head teacher is deployed on that, and to the continuous professional development of the head teacher.
I acknowledge the spirit of amendment 29, which would require the agreement of the parent council to secondment. However, if a school has a very good head teacher, the parent council may be reluctant to part with them for more than six months, although that person's experience could be extremely useful in the development of policy in the local education authority.
I am, therefore, inclined to support neither amendment. The water was significantly muddied by some of the comments that were made by COSLA and ADES when we took evidence from them.
I reinforce Elaine Murray's comments. It is not helpful to tie an appointment to a specific school, as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's amendment 15 would. I will give a current example from a school in East Renfrewshire. The head teacher retired early and it was difficult to fill the post immediately. Therefore a very good head from another school is temporarily running both schools. That is a highly advisable step in the circumstances and it would not be possible if we were to agree to Lord James's amendment, which would introduce a rigid and inflexible system.
I have a lot more sympathy with Fiona Hyslop's amendment 29, to which Andrew Welsh spoke. Speaking as a parent, I would not like the head teacher of my children's school to be taken away for an extended time, although it would be okay for a short period. The question is whether we want to deal with the issue in legislation; it is currently not dealt with in the bill. It would not be helpful to formalise in legislation the feelings of me and other parents. Much as I did not agree with COSLA's and ADES's evidence to the committee about treating head teachers as jobbing workers who can be moved around from school to school, it would not necessarily help if in legislation we were to formally prevent them from being moved around. I will resist both amendments.
I speak in support of amendments 15 and 29. If we are to have true parental involvement, parents must be involved in ensuring that a named head teacher is appointed to their school. Ken Macintosh's example of a head who is running two schools, albeit temporarily, is not a situation that I like to see. Schools must be part of the community; for that to be the case there must be a sense of belonging. Parents must therefore be able to recognise who is in charge of their school and they should have some input in relation to a secondment that will last for more than six months. Parents must have that input, given that we are saying that we will involve them across the board. It is contradictory to prevent such involvement, which is very important. I would hate to see head teachers not being appointed to specific schools. I will support both amendments.
I will make a couple of comments before I ask the minister to respond to the debate.
The issue requires to be examined because the current rules could be abused by some local authorities. I know that a primary school in my constituency has not had a permanent head teacher for almost three years because of a series of secondments. However, I am not convinced that the way to deal with the problem is to include a provision in primary legislation. The issue should be dealt with through guidance and good practice, which should be adopted as a matter of course. Consultation should happen not only if a head teacher is seconded for six months; if a head teacher is to be removed from a school for any length of time it would be good practice for the education authority to consult and discuss the matter with the parent council. The matter should be covered in guidance rather than in legislation.
I would be surprised if any education authority would want to appoint a pool of head teachers rather than appoint them to specific schools. That would not be good practice, but there must be flexibility within the legislation so that education authorities can respond to circumstances such as the long-term illness of a head teacher or other reasons. Such a situation might arise because a school is performing particularly badly and the education authority wants to get the best support into the school quickly. The education authority should have such flexibility, but it should act according to sensible guidance and good practice. Legislation is not the right way to deal with the issue.
I ask the minister to respond to the debate.
I echo what the convener said at the end of his remarks. Amendments 15 and 29 raise an important issue and the committee is right to want to probe the matter more deeply, but a number of red herrings have been brought into the debate. Elaine Murray was right to say that the bill will essentially make no change to the current arrangements. The overarching desire is to have flexibility by way of guidance and so on. We should keep that in mind.
We make clear in our response to the consultation analysis on head teacher appointments that our policy intention remains that advertising of vacancies should be the norm, although we accept that there could be occasions when local authorities, in order to fulfil their statutory obligations as employers, might need a more flexible approach to making appointments. In such circumstances, appointments should require discussion with parent councils. The guidance will take that on board. It is certainly not our intention to allow head teachers to be whisked away willy-nilly without some consultation, even if there are urgent requirements elsewhere. We will have to explore the details and we will probably wish to discuss the matter with the committee in the future. I stress that appointment as part of a pool would be an exceptional situation: the norm is for head teachers to be appointed to schools.
It is worth pointing out that a wider power is given with respect to appointments, as set out in the teachers' scheme of conditions of service, which allows local authorities to move teachers or head teachers as necessary for the smooth running of their services. That could be in order to deal with situations such as have been described by a number of members; for example sickness, early retirement, secondment to headquarters and so on. Such transfers will happen only exceptionally, but there needs to be provision for such situations. We will try to deal with that appropriately in guidance.
Once again, I draw attention to the starting point. When I talked about red herrings, I was referring to the suggestion that the process—as Lord James described it when commenting on observations that were made in evidence—is one of appointing people to local authorities and then appointing them to schools. That is not what happens. The appointment is to a school. However, the employer is the local authority, which ultimately has discretion to transfer people if necessary.
Amendments 15 and 29 would both put in the bill detail that would be unnecessary, confusing and against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of respondents to our consultation. Section 14 aims to set out a framework for parental involvement—which we regard as central—in the appointment of head teachers and deputes. It does not say what the results of the process should be, which is a matter for local decision making. Section 14(1) will place a duty on authorities to inform parent councils of their procedures for filling vacancies; we are confident that that, along with the provisions that allow the making of regulations, will be sufficient. Scottish ministers have powers under section 14(3) to tackle instances in which local authorities, against our expectation and against best practice, overuse their powers to move head teachers. We can deal with that should any practical problems emerge.
The drafting of amendment 29 raises a number of questions—its terms are a bit uncertain in some respects. First, the definition of the term "transfer" is not very clear. It could potentially create another perceived level of appointment, with less involvement by the parent council. That would require no consultation of the receiving school's parent council and would make no mention of the movement of staff outwith the education authority's area, so it could be done without any consultation of the parent council of either school. Neither would a duty be placed on authorities to consult in cases in which a transfer was for less than six months. Unfortunately, as with many such things, the law of unintended consequences could produce a situation in which short-term transfers had become the norm, which could be more damaging to the continuity of leadership within schools.
Those are technical points, but I do not want to take anything away from the central issue, which is that appointment to schools will be the norm, while the local authority, as the employer, will have powers reserved to it to do certain things in exceptional circumstances. None of that is a change from the current position, and we have heard no evidence to suggest that the present arrangements have been abused. If the arrangements are abused, we have powers under section 14 to deal with that.
I hope that, against that background, and with the assurance that I am more than happy to discuss with members or the committee as a whole any further implications or concerns, the committee will be prepared to reject both amendments 15 and 29 and that the two members concerned might be willing to withdraw and not to move the amendments respectively.
I wish to press amendment 15 to the vote. Both amendments 15 and 29 are competent. It seems to me that it would give reassurance and clarity to the teaching profession and parents if these matters were covered in the bill. It seems that far too much is being left to guidance. If the amendments were included in the bill, it would be crystal clear what is intended.
The question is, that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Against
Baker, Mr Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 15 disagreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
After section 14
Amendment 29 not moved.
Section 24 agreed to.
Long Title
Amendment 44 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Long title, as amended, agreed to.
That ends stage 2 of the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill. I look forward to seeing you all again at stage 3. I thank the minister and his team for their attendance.
That concludes the public part of the meeting. Before we go into private session, I remind members that the pupil motivation inquiry report was published this morning and is now available on the Parliament website.
Meeting continued in private until 11:58.