The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Education (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, which is SP Bill 64A; the marshalled list, which is SP Bill 64AML; the supplement to the marshalled list; and the groupings list, which is SP Bill 64AG. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on the amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after the group is called. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments. [Interruption.]
I advise members that we are having a sound check, because members are, I understand, having difficulty hearing what is said.
Section A1—Pupils experiencing inequality of education
Group 1 is on inequality of outcome and so on, in relation to pupils with speech, language and communication needs. Amendment 17, in the name of George Adam, is grouped with amendments 19, 20, 23 to 28, 33 to 37, 40 and 41. I call George Adam to move amendment 17 and speak to all the amendments in the group.
Closing the educational attainment gap is a key priority for the Scottish Government. I whole-heartedly support it in that aim, but we must look at the full picture.
If we believe that poverty is a factor in educational attainment, then we must look at poverty-related educational issues. I believe that many children from our poorest areas are experiencing both financial poverty and poverty of speech and language. If they turn up at school in primary 1 unable to communicate in a way that will help them to engage, then they will struggle for the rest of their school life.
I have lodged my amendments because I am convinced that 50 per cent or more of children who are living in poverty do not have to have delayed speech, language and communication development. SLC delay leads to poor literacy and numeracy skills, leading, inevitably, to inequality of outcome.
There are a couple of fundamental points to make. The statistics that link socioeconomic disadvantage—poverty—with speech, language and communication delay are compelling. The report commissioned by the Scottish Government in 2015, “Tackling Inequalities in the Early Years: Key messages from 10 years of the Growing Up in Scotland study”, highlights that 54 per cent of children from low-income homes present with below-average vocabulary ability at the age of five. Living in poverty also means that children are around eight times more likely to turn up at school with an SLC delay than the average child—of whom only 6 per cent have the disorder. The growing up in Scotland study also highlights that SLC delay is a staggering 24 per cent higher among poor children than children from richer income groups.
With these amendments I am saying that when we talk about poverty we have to look at the larger picture. If we say that poverty is an issue, then we also have to look at how to address the issue.
SLC delay is the second highest type of difficulty recorded among children from low-income families. It is just one point lower than the 55 per cent who are not breastfed, which, unlike SLC delay, is an issue that rightly attracts a lot of strategic attention.
I believe that there has been some confusion about what my amendments are about. They are not about making a special case for a special group of children with complex additional support needs. They are about poverty. These amendments address the biggest and most common barrier to learning that is faced by a majority of children that live in poverty. This bill explicitly sets out to help those children.
The statistics that link SLC delay to inequality of outcome are equally attention grabbing. The recent report by Save the Children, “Ready to Read: Closing the gap in early language skills so that every child in Scotland can read well”, highlights the importance of early language skills in setting the foundation of children’s later literacy and education. Studies showing that the majority of children and young people who are in crisis or who are excluded or in trouble have SLC needs are, perhaps, even more startling. I have often spoken about times when I have gone to young offenders’ institutes and met the young people there; they have often said that, if they had had such provision, they might not be where they are. Those are the type of people who have this type of disorder.
The amendments that I have lodged aim to establish an awareness of the strong associations between socioeconomic disadvantage and speech, language and communication delay, and subsequent low attainment and inequality of outcome. They also aim to achieve focused, cross-agency and cross-discipline partnership action on speech, language and communication.
Ultimately, my amendments aim to reduce inequality of outcome for at least half of Scotland’s poorest children: young people who arrive at primary school with delayed speech, language and communication development and go on to carry that learning disadvantage through their school lives into adult life, when they are statistically more likely to become poor parents of future generations. I believe that that is the key issue in this debate. I believe that this group of amendments can help us to achieve the goal that we all want to achieve: to ensure that all our children get that opportunity and that we can close the attainment gap.
I move amendment 17.
I rise to support the amendments in the name of George Adam. The bill’s purpose is to close the attainment gap. Mr Adam said that we need to look at the bigger picture, but I argue that we need also to look at the smaller picture if we are seriously going to address the attainment gap. We must ask ourselves what the key problems are that lead to that gap.
Later this afternoon, we will move amendments about looked-after children—a group of young people who have particularly poor outcomes at school. Mr Adam also made a compelling case for considering the strong association between socioeconomic disadvantage and delayed development in speech, language and communication. Indeed, he quoted the huge figure of 54 per cent of children from low-income households presenting with below-average vocabulary ability at age five. That means that they arrive at school with problems in the very skills that are required for them to do well in their learning. It is therefore no surprise that, as Mr Adam said, there is a strong association between delayed development in speech, language and communication and inequality of outcome, including in attainment. For those reasons, we agree with Mr Adam that, although this is not a special case, it is a very powerful aspect of the problem that the bill is designed to address.
I will mention two of the amendments in the group that seem to be quite important. Amendment 27 is on the duty to use inclusive communication standards in communicating with, for example, parents. Those of us who have looked at the evidence around the attainment gap agree that engaging with parents and families in the round, not just children, is crucial to making a difference. Some of the parents to whom we need to provide the most support will themselves have SLC needs; therefore, we should require schools to consider that and how they can account for it.
If the cabinet secretary does not feel able to support the other amendments in the group, I hope that she will support amendment 28, which seems to be of particular significance because it would require the national improvement framework to take account of the most common barrier to learning—that which is faced by children and young people with SLC delay.
For those reasons, I support the amendments in Mr Adam’s name.
I think that the sound in the chamber has improved, but I make a plea to members to ensure that their microphones are directed properly.
At stage 2, I spoke to several amendments from the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists in relation to the Gaelic language, and we are very supportive of the principle behind the amendments in the name of George Adam. The right support should be provided to pupils with speech, language and communication needs at the right time in their educational process.
Presiding Officer, as I am sure you remember, this has been an issue since the first session of Parliament. However, in the current financial climate, there is a fear that some of these services may either be cut from existing provision or just not provided at all. I hope that the integration of health and social care will help. I also asked the Scottish Government what commitments it will make to ensure that the needs of children with speech, language and communication delay are met. I am aware that we have had significant legislation and guidance over the four sessions of this Parliament.
During the committee’s evidence gathering at stage 1, we heard criticism of the bill’s provisions that are aimed at reducing inequalities of outcome in our education system. The concerns were not about the aspiration of reducing those inequalities and closing the attainment gap, although questions were asked about what that meant and whether it is possible to close the gap completely, as the First Minister and the education secretary have promised to do; rather, the concern was that the bill would do nothing to achieve that shared aspiration. Keir Bloomer memorably described the Government’s proposals as
“pious thinking masquerading as law making.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 9 June 2015; c 20.]
Others suggested that, although poverty undoubtedly lies at the root of inequality of outcome, in many cases it is by no means the sole factor.
The evidence clearly shows that the education system is not delivering consistently for those with additional needs, including those with speech and language needs. Despite what George Adam says, those are not related solely to the issue of poverty or, as Iain Gray suggested, to those in the care system.
I therefore support George Adam’s amendment, as well as those lodged by Mark Griffin in group 2. However, I make a plea. It is all very well putting safeguards of that nature into legislation but if ministers accept the amendments they have to be fully resourced. If councils are not funded to deliver those aspirations, it would look more like pious thinking than serious policy making.
14:30
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.
I invite George Adam to wind up—as quickly as possible, please—and say whether he intends to press or withdraw his amendment.
I am pleased that we have had this debate. I have never been so popular with the Opposition members in the Parliament, but I am passionate about the issue. Children in our communities are turning up to school with a language difficulty. If we want to close the educational attainment gap and we believe that poverty is an issue, we must continue to look at the issue. I still believe that we must remain mindful of it.
I understand that I have lodged my amendments at stage 3 and that we have not had an opportunity to go through the whole parliamentary process and discuss the issue at length, but it is important that we look at how our legislation impacts on people’s lives in the real world.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s reassurances and the offer of a communications summit, and I accept that she has a grasp of the issue. On that basis, and given that we can develop this further and discuss it in more detail, I seek to withdraw amendment 17.
Amendment 17, by agreement, withdrawn.
Group 2 is on inequalities of outcome—looked-after children. Amendment 18, in the name of Mark Griffin, is grouped with amendments 21 and 22.
I ask members to support amendments 18, 21 and 22. We believe that we need to put looked-after children at the heart of the attainment gap challenge, and we are seeking to provide an equal footing for Scotland’s kids in care in the new focus on children from poorer backgrounds. With amendment 18, we seek to ensure that local authorities set out how they will tackle the attainment gap both for looked-after children and for children from deprived backgrounds.
We know that education is the most important economic policy that we can pursue. If we can give every child a world-class education, they and Scotland will be able to take full advantage of the amazing opportunities that the future will bring. The Government must be judged on how it supports the most disadvantaged people in our society, and they do not come much more disadvantaged than our young people in care. The system is failing them in a way that it fails no one else, yet the state owes a particular duty of care to those children because they are our children—the state is the parent and we pay the bills.
I do not believe that we can address the attainment gap without specifically addressing the educational needs of our young people in care.
I move amendment 18.
I thank Mr Griffin for once again using the opportunity that the bill offers to recognise the particular educational challenges that are faced by our looked-after children.
As I outlined during stage 2, I absolutely accept the thrust of Mr Griffin’s argument. The state has a great responsibility towards looked-after children—we are indeed their parents—and we know that their educational outcomes are not as they should be. Throughout the bill’s passage, I have been clear about my wish for it—first and foremost—to address the particular educational challenges that are associated with poverty, and that remains my view. However, I very much view the bill as the start of a process through which we can explore how best to use the powers that are set out in section A1 to support other groups who also face particular challenges. I alluded to that in response to Mr Adam’s amendments. Of course, that process must be an inclusive one. We must provide all our partners with the opportunity to consider whether such a step could practically benefit our learners and, if so, how.
I am minded to strengthen the legislative provisions for supporting that group of young people. However, we must first consider how the duty would interact with local authorities’ existing corporate parenting responsibilities, which were introduced by this Government through the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. In addition, we will explore how the national improvement framework might be developed over time to help us meet the needs of those young people. I am sure that we would all agree about the importance of building on our recent efforts to ensure a clear line of sight between policy and legislation at the national level and face-to-face work to improve educational experiences for particular groups of learners in classrooms across the country.
I am sure that those issues are not insurmountable; I am also sure that they are not trivial, and that is exactly why we must work with others to overcome them. The regulation-making power in the bill allows for such dialogue to take place and I am happy to commit to consulting, with a view to making regulations that extend the duty to looked-after children. I intend to start that work immediately, engaging with key partners, including the centre for excellence for looked after children in Scotland education forum and children with experience of our care system.
Those discussions will be delivered in the context of a system that is undoubtedly improving outcomes for looked-after children. Attainment levels are up, as are positive destinations, while exclusions are down. We are clearly on the right path, but that is not to say that more cannot be done—more can, and must, be done.
In closing, I once again thank Mr Griffin for raising an important issue. Although I cannot support his amendments 18, 20 and 21 for the reasons that I have set out, I hope that the commitments that I have made today will provide members with reassurance on our commitment to improving the educational outcomes for that group of children.
I invite Mark Griffin to wind up and to say whether he intends to press or withdraw amendment 18.
The cabinet secretary described the bill as
“the start of a process”.
The start of the process would have been to make a statement of intent as to how we will support children in care—loud and proud—on the face of the Education (Scotland) Bill. As the cabinet secretary said, they are our children—we are the responsible guardians and state parents of those children.
The cabinet secretary talks about the regulation-making power, but it would have been a fantastic message to send out—today or even at the start of the process—that when tackling the educational attainment gap, rather than being a secondary part of the bill, one of our first thoughts was how we can tackle that gap for looked-after children in particular.
I press amendment 18 and ask members to support it.
The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
Members: No.
Parliament is not agreed, so there will be a division. As it is the first division of the bill at stage 3, I suspend Parliament for five minutes, after which there will be a 30-second division.
14:42 Meeting suspended.
We move to the division on amendment 18.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brennan, Lesley (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Buchanan, Cameron (Lothian) (Con)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 42, Against 73, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 18 disagreed to.
Amendments 19 to 22 not moved.
Amendments 23 to 25 not moved.
After section A1
Amendments 26 and 27 not moved.
Section 1A—National Improvement Framework
Amendment 28 not moved.
Group 3 is on the national improvement framework—standardised testing. Amendment 29, in the name of Liam McArthur, is grouped with amendments 30 to 32 and 39. Mr McArthur, before you speak to the amendments, check that your microphone is directed properly so that we can hear you.
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for allowing the amendments to be considered. I observe at the outset that Mark Griffin’s amendment 39 appears to be driving at much the same thing as my amendments 30 and 31. My amendment 32 aims to hold ministers to their word about the timing of national testing, should it go ahead.
However, my preferred option, and that of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, is captured in amendment 29. I urge the Government to heed the calls of teaching unions, teachers and parents to drop plans for national standardised testing in primary schools.
Not one of us disputes the need to do more to allow every child to fulfil his or her potential, and too often a child’s life chances appear to be predetermined by the circumstances of their birth. However, as Children in Scotland said at stage 2:
“the educational inequalities that stem from socio-economic disadvantage are complex and multifaceted”.
Children in Scotland went on to accuse ministers of reducing
“a complex set of issues ... to an easily identifiable slogan with the hope that these issues will be amenable to equally short-term solutions.”
That over-simplification is epitomised by the determination of ministers to return to national testing for primary pupils. It has been criticised by teaching unions as “a backward step” and few teachers have a good word to say about it. The emeritus professor of education at the University of Strathclyde observed last week that
“it is notable that the last time such an approach was introduced was by a Conservative government led by Margaret Thatcher ... born of a lack of trust in the teaching profession and narrow vision of what constituted progress”.
Denials from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and the First Minister that they are ushering in a return to high-stakes testing, teaching to the test and league tables are difficult to square with what is proposed. Information will be available on a school-by-school basis, so whether or not league tables are sanctioned by ministers, it seems that they are inevitable.
Of course, assessment of pupils is at the heart of good teaching. Teachers do it on a daily basis: observing what happens in the classroom, marking pupils’ work, and gleaning information from the standardised tests that are already in place and—crucially—from their in-depth knowledge of the young person as an individual. The Scottish education system has no shortage of such data, particularly at classroom and school levels. The focus should be on making better use of the wealth of information that we already have.
Previously, the only people who were arguing for a return to national testing were the Conservatives, but they have never made any secret of their desire to return to league tables. Bizarrely, the Scottish National Party Government now wants to ignore the concerns that have been raised by teaching unions, teachers and parents, and to abandon the ethos of curriculum for excellence, by pursuing a similar approach.
Jackie Brock of Children in Scotland concluded:
“There is clear evidence that high-stakes standardised testing, as proposed in the National Improvement Framework, can have a detrimental effect on all children's wellbeing.”
In that context, I urge Parliament to reject the approach and to support amendment 29, which is in my name.
I move amendment 29.
The national improvement framework will result in a new era of data gathering by the Scottish Government on educational performance and outcomes. That new data will rightly support the Government and Parliament in taking the necessary measures to close the attainment gap. In that light, international best practice should be at the centre of the new approach.
My amendment 39 would require the Government to examine again the international benchmarks and to consider how they interact with the national improvement framework. The benchmarks are the trends in international mathematics and science study, or TIMSS, and the progress in international reading literacy study, or PIRLS. If the national improvement framework data were to be constructed in such a way as to reflect those studies, that would allow us to compare ourselves with other leading countries in education.
We are all ambitious about the future of our country. We want to cut the gap between the richest and the rest in our classrooms in order to make Scottish education the best in the world. I want to measure success not against countries throughout the United Kingdom but against countries throughout the world. By undertaking a review against TIMSS and PIRLS, we would be able to reconsider how we benchmark progress in Scottish education against countries throughout the developed world. As an outward-looking and confident country, Scotland should be prepared to participate in well-recognised and authoritative international studies.
I ask members to support my amendment 39.
As Scottish Conservatives have said many times before, we are firmly committed to standardised and consistent testing that allows parents and teachers to have meaningful and accurate information about the progress of their children and how that progress measures against other pupils’. That is not only because literacy and numeracy trends tell us that educational standards are not as good as they should be; just as important is that it is the right thing to do educationally. It is not about more testing or reporting about how we test, but about better testing. We whole-heartedly support the principle of good-quality testing, but we want the result of the bill to be successful classroom practice rather than burdens on local authorities when it comes to reporting.
We cannot agree with Liam McArthur on amendments 29 to 31, given that they subscribe to the Liberals’ overall objection to testing and would introduce a complex reporting structure about “wellbeing”. However, we would accept amendment 32, should he decide to press it, because it seeks to reduce the unnecessary burden on councils in relation to the dates of testing, on which provision the bill is far too prescriptive.
We have some sympathy with the intention of amendment 39 in Mark Griffin’s name, especially in respect of the need to ensure that Scotland participates in the TIMSS and PIRLS data, because we firmly believe that that has considerable qualitative value in a way that we believe is important when measuring educational output. However, the other parts of the amendment are overly prescriptive; for that reason, we cannot accept it.
I oppose the amendments in Liam McArthur’s name.
With this group of amendments—group 3—we reach the heart of the bill: the national improvement framework. That is ironic, of course, because when the bill was introduced the national improvement framework was not part of it. It did not exist. Indeed, although the Government moved amendments to introduce it at stage 2, there was no framework to enable the Education and Culture Committee to consider what was being included in the bill.
We have been critical of the approach that the Scottish Government—and the First Minister, in particular—have taken to the debate on national standardised testing. The First Minister has, on occasion, tried to play both sides and to convince some commentators that she is supporting a return to high-stakes national testing and comparisons while reassuring others—in particular, the teaching profession and parents—that that is not the intention. The original version of the improvement framework rather risked such a return.
The final version of the framework removes much of that risk, although to a degree it does so by delaying our knowing what national standardised testing will look like—a working group is developing it—but ministers, the cabinet secretary and the First Minister have given us strong assurances that all that is really intended is replacement of the existing standardised testing that is already used in schools with a particular national system that will be developed. In itself, that should improve the data that are available to us. That has to be a good thing, as long as it is done in a way that avoids high-stakes testing, teaching to the test and crude league tables.
On the basis of the assurances that we have been given, we will not support Liam McArthur’s amendments.
15:00
The national improvement framework represents a significant step forward. I have been heartened by the widespread support since the First Minister launched it early last month, and by the positive contributions of teachers, parents, children and others to its development.
Of course, the framework will not by itself deliver the improvements that we all want, but it will mean that we have available to us, for the first time, comprehensive information to inform our decisions. How the information is used will determine our success.
The framework sets out six drivers, all of which are vital to securing improvement. One of the six drivers is the introduction of a Scottish standardised assessment. It is a crucial element of our approach to improvement, and we have worked closely with partners across the education community to develop a model that we believe will benefit parents, teachers and—most important—pupils. It will provide us with more consistent and reliable data at local and national levels. It will also allow us to identify successes and areas for progress, it will inform policy making and it will enrich teaching in the classroom. It is a key strand of our strategy for improving evidence throughout the primary and early secondary education phase, which is in line with a finding from the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on our education system.
It has always been intended that assessment will be used to inform the professional judgment of teachers without creating the perverse incentives that often accompany high-stakes testing. I was therefore disappointed to see amendments from Liam McArthur that seem to take no account of the progress that we have made to secure consensus on our approach. Given that consensus, I cannot understand why, through amendment 29, Liam McArthur is again trying to remove standardised assessment from the national improvement framework. First, I do not think that it would be right to legislate on such a specific point of detail in relation to the framework. More fundamentally, however, there has never been any question but that assessment is critical to supporting children’s learning. It is already a feature of day-to-day learning and teaching across the country—most councils do baseline assessment or some form of standardised assessment in primary 1—and, by introducing a more consistent approach, we will only add to its value.
Furthermore, of course, 30 of the 32 local authorities already use a form of standardised assessment, so a national approach will give us the opportunity to strip out duplication costs, to add consistency and, for the first time, to have a bespoke standardised assessment tool for curriculum for excellence.
Liam McArthur’s amendments 30 and 31 seek the publication of certain reports before assessments are introduced. Again, in arguing against the amendments, I point towards the significant degree of engagement that has taken place up to now, and which will continue as we seek in the months to come to implement the new approach to assessment. The data that we obtain through assessment will be a driver for improvement, alongside the range of other evidence that teachers already gather daily about children’s progress, and will be used by teachers in a way that usefully informs the judgments that they make about how best to support individual children, as well as supporting their discussions with parents.
Our approach to assessment has never been a feature of the bill. As I have already said, I do not think that it is right to legislate for such a level of detail of individual elements of the framework. Rather, the detail should be in the framework itself and should be informed and amended through the annual review process. Furthermore, the First Minister and I have been clear that teachers should be able to use the standardised assessment when they think that it is the right time to use it. I hope that that gives Liam McArthur the assurance that he is perhaps seeking through amendment 32.
I have been clear that, when we are designing the standardised assessment, we will be sure to learn from the experiences of other countries—hence my decision to include at stage 2 a new requirement for all annual reports that are produced by Scottish ministers to take account of relevant international benchmarking data. Those data being restricted to the narrow and incomplete list of surveys that is set out in Mark Griffin’s amendment 39 would not be helpful.
In summary, I do not think that it would be appropriate to prescribe arrangements in the bill in the way that is suggested by the amendments in group 3. For that reason, I cannot support them.
I ask Liam McArthur to wind up and to say whether he intends to press or to seek to withdraw amendment 29.
I thank all those who contributed to the debate. I fully accept Mark Griffin’s points about the need to re-engage with international benchmarks, and Liz Smith made a fair point about the qualitative nature of that data and the assessments. I thank her for her clear and consistent support for that approach and for indicating her support for amendment 32.
Iain Gray elegantly set out the cart-before-the-horse approach that has been taken to that element of the bill. We were being asked to vote on a national improvement framework that nobody had yet seen—certainly no one on the committee had. I acknowledge that Labour members, like the Conservatives and the SNP, support the reintroduction of national testing in primary schools. The cabinet secretary alluded to being heartened by the widespread support for the national improvement framework, and there is much to be welcomed in the focus on leadership, supporting teachers and engagement with parents, but when she talks about the consensus that exists she must recognise that, equally, there is a consensus in opposition that is concerned about the approach that is being taken in relation to imposition of national testing in primary schools. It has been described as a “retrograde step”; that is just one of the reasons why I and my colleagues will not be supporting it in the context of the national improvement framework.
The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brennan, Lesley (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Buchanan, Cameron (Lothian) (Con)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 107, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 29 disagreed to.
Amendment 30 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The question is, that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brennan, Lesley (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Buchanan, Cameron (Lothian) (Con)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 9, Against 106, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 30 disagreed to.
Amendment 31 not moved.
Amendment 32 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Buchanan, Cameron (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brennan, Lesley (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 22, Against 94, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 32 disagreed to.
Amendment 33 not moved.
That brings us to group 4, on the national improvement framework in relation to consultation during annual review. Amendment 1, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5.
The amendments in this group are minor and technical in nature and are designed to simplify and clarify the national improvement framework provisions.
Amendments 1, 2 and 3 will amend new section 3C(4) of the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000 to make it clear that it is for the Scottish ministers to determine which parents and pupils are to be consulted as part of any review of the national improvement framework. As currently drafted, the provisions could be interpreted as requiring that ministers consult all pupils and parents. Clearly that is not the intention.
I would like to take this opportunity to make clear my personal commitment to ensuring that the national improvement framework continues to be—and is seen to be—a shared endeavour, with parents, pupils, teachers and, of course, local and national Government all playing a key role. It is only by taking that type of collegiate approach that we will be able to unlock the huge potential of the framework and, indeed, of our education system as a whole.
For that reason we will continue to involve as many individuals and organisations as possible as we work to bring the framework to life. If it is passed, we will commence the relevant provisions in the bill later this year.
Amendments 4 and 5 focus on the definition of “school education” for the purposes of the framework. Section 2 of the 2000 act makes it clear that, for the purposes of raising standards, school education is to be taken to mean education that is
“directed to the development of the personality, talents and mental and physical abilities of the child or young person to their fullest potential”.
That definition is to be applied in relation to the development, review and implementation of the national improvement framework. In the case of ministers’ duties to establish and review the framework, that is made clear through the inclusion of new section 3C(7) of the 2000 act, which is introduced by amendment 4.
The same clarification is not necessary in respect of the duty of education authorities to work towards achieving the priorities of the framework—set out in new section 3D(2) of the 2000 act—as the term “school education” is not used to frame the duty in the same way. Consequently, amendment 5 removes section 3D(3) of the 2000 act, which was introduced at stage 2.
I encourage members to support the amendments, and I move amendment 1.
As no other member has requested to speak, do you wish to add anything, cabinet secretary?
I have nothing further to add.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments 2 to 5 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.
Section 1B—Plans and reports
Amendments 34 to 37 not moved.
Group 5 is on “Reduction of inequalities of outcome—links with children’s service planning.” Amendment 38, in the name of Liam McArthur, is the only amendment in the group.
15:15
I will not repeat the concerns that I raised previously in relation to the Government’s plans to reintroduce national testing. However, given that that appears to be the direction on which we are now set, I hope that the minister and Parliament will accept this further minor amendment.
As Children in Scotland has pointed out, and as the Education and Culture Committee heard repeatedly during our stage 1 evidence on the bill, tackling inequalities and closing the gaps in attainment cannot be laid solely at the door of our education system.
Jackie Brock of Children in Scotland reminds us that education cannot be considered in isolation from wider children’s services planning and that any new duties that are introduced should be in harmony with the recently enacted Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. Amendment 38 ensures that that will happen.
Others, including health partners, have a role to play, but on reflection I was reluctant to add further reporting requirements on health boards. I am persuaded that a more proportionate response, which should achieve the same outcome, is to incorporate the duty in children’s services plans. I hope that Parliament will agree.
I move amendment 38.
Throughout the bill process we have been keen to identify opportunities to streamline and integrate the range of reporting requirements that are placed on education authorities.
At stage 2, that approach led to the removal of outdated planning arrangements that were provided for under the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000 and the introduction of consolidated planning and reporting arrangements covering inequalities of outcome and the national improvement framework. We have sought to link school improvement planning and education authority standards and quality reporting directly to the framework, resulting in a coherent approach that I believe is well placed to support improvement at all levels in our education system.
That said, I absolutely recognise that education planning, reporting and delivery cannot be viewed in isolation. Many of the challenges that lead to low attainment cannot be fixed simply by our education services alone. Instead, they require a joined-up approach whereby all local agencies come together to plan and deliver services with our children’s wellbeing placed at the centre.
That is the key thrust behind the children’s services planning and reporting arrangements that were introduced through the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. I advocate the need to develop clear links between those arrangements and the planning structures for which this bill provides. To that end, my officials have committed to exploring how we might usefully support education authorities and other agencies in that endeavour, not least through the planned consultations on the respective pieces of guidance that are focused on this bill and on children’s services planning.
Nevertheless, I see no good reason that our commitment to a more coherent planning framework for public services should not be reflected in the bill. On that basis, I am minded to support Mr McArthur’s amendment 38, and I encourage colleagues on all sides of the chamber to do likewise.
I am staggering to rise to my feet. [Laughter.] I thank the cabinet secretary for her comments, and I certainly accept her point about the need to streamline the reporting requirements. I lodged my amendment more in hope than expectation, and I am delighted with the cabinet secretary’s response. I will press amendment 38.
Amendment 38 agreed to.
Amendment 39 moved—[Mark Griffin].
The question is, that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brennan, Lesley (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Buchanan, Cameron (Lothian) (Con)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 38, Against 73, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 39 disagreed to.
Section 1C—Guidance
Amendments 40 and 41 not moved.
After section 1C
That takes us to group 6, on a review of the effectiveness of measures to reduce inequalities of outcome. Amendment 42, in the name of Mark Griffin, is the only amendment in the group.
We believe in closing the attainment gap in our schools and we support the Government’s intention to do so. However, we remain concerned that, if additional resources are not focused on those who need them most, the Parliament’s good will and efforts will be lost. Therefore, we are asking the Government to review the progress that is being made on achieving the bill’s aims and to look specifically at whether extra resources will be required. That would include looking at whether we should raise taxes on the highest earners, to raise extra revenue.
The truth is this: how much we care about the issue will be demonstrated by how much we are willing to invest. It is a well-rehearsed point that Labour members believe that we should commit to a higher tax rate for higher earners and devote the resources to closing the gap. I accept that legislation is not where such a policy would usually lie, but we are keen to explore ways to ensure that the bill requires proper consideration of the resources that are devoted to achieving the bill’s purpose.
We are not asking the Scottish Government to commit here and now to our position. We know that it has consistently voted against progressive taxes on higher earners to pay for funding for those who need it most. We are asking the Government to review the case for further resources once the act is in place. I hope that the minister will consider my amendment.
I move amendment 42.
The cabinet secretary was right when she said—I hope that I get this right—that the national improvement framework will not by itself close the attainment gap and that it is what we do with the data that will have that effect. That is true, and amendment 42 goes exactly to that point.
It is simply not enough to legislate for an end, however noble that end might be, if we do not ensure that we have the means to achieve it. The Scottish Government’s track record in that regard is not good. On climate change, on fuel poverty and on parents’ rights, we legislated for entirely laudable ends, but in every instance the Scottish Government failed to deliver the means to achieve the end. Amendment 42 simply provides that, if the means that are allocated prove inadequate to achieve the purpose of the bill, that should be corrected, or the Government should explain why it is unwilling to make the correction.
As I said in the context of Mr McArthur’s amendment 38, the bill provides us with a robust and comprehensive planning and reporting framework that will give us the wide range of evidence that we will need if we are to deliver the excellence and equity in our education system for which I am sure that we all strive. Through the publication of annual plans and reports at authority and national levels, we will be able to assess our progress and the effectiveness of our overall approach to raising attainment. That scrutiny will extend to the legal framework within which we operate.
In light of that, I cannot see what value could be added by a one-off sunset review such as Mark Griffin’s amendment 42 seeks to introduce. Indeed, I question whether a review that would be delivered so soon after royal assent could realistically offer meaningful learning. After all, certain provisions might not even have been commenced by that point, and statutory guidance might be yet to be produced in partnership with education authorities. That would not be unusual.
Further, I do not see how a one-off review is consistent with our drive for continuous improvement in our system. Of course we want to see improvement 12 to 14 months from now, but improvement must be sustained and we must have a means of measuring it. That is exactly what the annual reporting process for which the bill provides will deliver.
I note the suggestion that the one-off report should describe our plans for income tax rates. I do not see why. Any revenue that is generated from the Scottish rate resolution or devolved taxes will be added to the pot of funding that is available to the Scottish ministers, who will then decide how those resources should be used.
At stage 2, to make the case for dedicated additional resources, Mr Griffin said:
“how much we care about this issue will be demonstrated by how much we are willing to invest.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 7 December 2015; c 11.]
He said something similar today. This Government has a strong track record of investing in our children’s futures. We support education authorities across the country to spend some £4.8 billion on education, according to the most recent published figures. Through the Scottish attainment challenge alone, we are providing some £100 million over four years to support learners from our most disadvantaged communities.
I dispute what Labour members said, because Labour’s plans are not progressive in the slightest. What Labour is proposing today and has previously proposed is a blunt instrument that tries to redress the lack of power to apply tax progressively. It would hit ordinary working Scots with additional taxation at a time of austerity and would shift the burden of austerity. I received interesting emails this morning from teachers who object to Labour’s plans, because they have been through a period of pay restraint only to find that the official Opposition proposes to tax them more.
Many of the arguments that Mr Griffin made were rehearsed at stage 2, when he lodged an amendment that was similar to amendment 42. I absolutely accept the value of providing members across the Parliament with an opportunity to consider the issues, and in that context I welcome his proposal. However, for the reasons that I set out, I cannot support amendment 42 and I encourage members not to support it.
15:30
Thousands of pupils who live in certain areas or experience deprivation in their family are missing out on the Scottish attainment challenge fund. We have consistently pushed for additional resources to be targeted in a different way that would mean that those pupils benefited from the funding. That is why I said that how much we care about the issue will be demonstrated by how much we are willing to invest. Currently, zero is invested to close the attainment gap for thousands of pupils. That should be compared with what is invested for their peers in other areas.
Perhaps the cabinet secretary has a different idea of what “progressive” means. I think that increasing the top rate of tax on the people who are most willing to—[Interruption.]
Order, please. I remind members that, if anyone wishes to make an intervention on a member who is speaking, they can request that of the member.
Perhaps SNP members should have listened to the consistent calls that we have made over a number of months for our fair start funding to be supported by an increased taxation rate of 50p on the highest earners.
On the subject of consistent calls over a number of months, will the member explain why today’s proposals were announced after Labour members signed up to a Finance Committee report that recommended no changes to the Scottish rate of income tax? [Interruption.]
Order, please. [Interruption.] Order, Mr McDonald.
The Scottish Labour Party is setting out a clear progressive agenda ahead of May’s election. We are setting out where we will raise additional funding to reverse the £500 million of Scottish Government cuts to local services. I make no apology for that.
As I said, thousands of pupils are missing out on the additional funding to close the attainment gap. A review is necessary to see what additional funding would be available at that point to support those pupils. I ask members to support amendment 42.
The question is, that amendment 42 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brennan, Lesley (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Buchanan, Cameron (Lothian) (Con)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 38, Against 81, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 42 disagreed to.
Group 7 is on inequalities of outcome—targets. Amendment 43, in the name of Mark Griffin, is grouped with amendment 44.
A strong legislative framework is needed to secure faster progress in closing the attainment gap in every part of Scotland. We particularly believe that an ambitious goal is needed to help to close the socioeconomic attainment gap in children’s literacy. We want a clear approach and an ambitious timescale for progress to be set out in legislation. There are precedents for such an approach, including the national targets for addressing fuel poverty, reducing climate change and eradicating child poverty.
We believe that enshrining targets in legislation would clearly articulate the scale of the Scottish Government’s aims in relation to closing the gap. That approach would promote greater public understanding of this key Government priority and raise the profile of the issue. It would demonstrate the changes that need to happen to succeed in closing the attainment gap and to ensure that future Governments remain committed to that vital objective. Achieving those goals will require a greater focus on supporting improvement for the poorest children—who are most likely to fall behind—while being consistent with the responsibilities of education authorities to support all children’s attainment. It will therefore drive a more effective and strategic approach to closing the attainment gap at a national and local level.
By the time they finish primary school, 12 per cent of children are not reading well. The majority of those children live in the most deprived areas. That is a key driver of the attainment gap in Scotland, and it has damaging implications for children’s outcomes later in life. We believe that, to close the attainment gap, the immediate priority must be for schools, parents, teachers and the Government to secure rapid improvement in literacy outcomes, particularly for the poorest children. Evidence suggests that that goal is achievable and that considerable progress can be made over the next decade.
I move amendment 43.
Amendments 43 and 44 are similar to amendments that Mr Griffin lodged during stage 2. In arguing for the amendments, he identified that targets—such as those that he has proposed—would promote greater public understanding and demonstrate the changes that need to be made for our efforts to be a success.
I reiterate the Government’s commitment to making significant progress on closing the attainment gap over the coming decade. The information that we will gather through the national improvement framework will allow us to set clear, precise and meaningful milestones on the road to closing that gap over the next few years. On that point, we share a common objective with Mr Griffin.
Where we differ is on the best means to drive improvement and monitor progress towards closing the gap. I set out at stage 2—and will do so again today—some of the clear risks that can come with the adoption of narrow targets such as those that the amendments propose. When such targets focus only on a select number of measures, they do not always provide us with an accurate picture of how an education system is performing as a whole.
Further, the partial picture that I have described could skew learning and teaching in a way that was unhelpful and which narrowed the breadth and depth of the learning that our children could expect. It seems to me that many of the arguments against high-stakes testing are equally applicable to high-stakes targets.
A key reason for developing the national improvement framework is to broaden the range of available evidence at key points throughout our children’s learning journey. Therefore, it seems counterintuitive to expand the range of evidence that we can collectively rely on but to then turn our attention to only one or two indicators of success.
When measuring progress, we will ultimately rely on key evidence about the achievement of curriculum levels. We will consider such information in a broad context and publish information annually, as is required by the bill. That material will be able to be used by parliamentarians, parents and others to identify successes and areas for improvement.
Such improvement is key. Sustained improvement against a range of measures, which will ultimately extend into the early years, will allow us to ensure that all children and young people have the potential to succeed, no matter where their individual strengths lie. It is important to note that the 27 to 30-month review is a review rather than some sort of compulsory test. It aims to provide proactive care and support by identifying at an early stage the development needs of children.
In light of what I have said, it remains my view that the proposed targets would not be helpful at this point. For that reason, I cannot support amendments 43 and 44.
I hear what the cabinet secretary says about high-stakes targets. However, we suggest attainment gap targets in the bill that could build on the existing attainment goals that are being worked towards through the early years collaborative and the raising attainment for all programme. Those initiatives include a goal that, by the end of 2017, 90 per cent of children in participating areas will be achieving all the expected development milestones by the time they start primary school, and a goal that, by 2016, 85 per cent of children in certain cluster schools will have had a successful experience and achieved curriculum for excellence second-level literacy and numeracy and health and wellbeing outcomes in preparation for secondary school. The issue is that the current goals do not ensure that the improvements are made for the poorest children, who make up the majority of the 10 to 15 per cent of struggling learners and who are not included in those ambitions. Those goals do not have national coverage and do not have a statutory status.
I ask members to support the amendments in my name, and I press amendment 43.
The question is, that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brennan, Lesley (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 36, Against 81, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 43 disagreed to.
Amendment 44 moved—[Mark Griffin].
The question is, that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brennan, Lesley (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 36, Against 80, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 44 disagreed to.
Section 7—Initial assessments
Group 8 is on requests for provision of Gaelic-medium primary education—initial and full assessments. Amendment 45, in the name of Mary Scanlon, is grouped with amendments 46 to 52.
These amendments seek clarity around the provision of Gaelic-medium education. As we all know, in passing legislation, what is important is not what happens here but how our legislation is implemented around Scotland. The provision of Gaelic-medium education must happen in partnership with local authorities. Therefore, it is important that, in considering these amendments, we examine the issues that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other local authorities have raised in order to ensure successful implementation.
Amendment 45 seeks to ensure that a council, before deciding whether to proceed to a full assessment costing £25,000, is able to take into account existing information that is relevant to the delivery of Gaelic-medium education. The bill as introduced allows the council to consider only demand from parents as the sole measure of whether a more detailed assessment is warranted. It is completely proper that parental demand be given proper attention and prominence in the bill, and amendment 45 asks for that.
15:45However, where an education authority already has information about other factors that could determine the viability of Gaelic-medium education, that information should be taken on board at the earliest possible stage. For example, the authority may have advertised unsuccessfully several times to recruit a Gaelic teacher. The amendments in group 8 would present an education authority with the ability to balance parental demand with other existing information relevant to the delivery of Gaelic-medium education.
That would help education authorities to take a more balanced decision on whether to proceed to the full assessment or, despite everything, move to deliver Gaelic education. Councils will have to pay £25,000 to carry out a full assessment even if they know that the end result is likely to be that there are insufficient resources or, more particularly, insufficient teachers, to be able to meet parental demand.
The amendments in group 8 seek clarity and some understanding from the Government of the issues facing local councils at this time. I hope that the minister will bring forward the information needed in order that councils can positively make provision for increased Gaelic teaching in our schools.
Amendments 46 and 48 seek to create the condition that an education authority can consider at the assessment stage other relevant information on whether Gaelic-medium education could be delivered. Given the duty on local authorities to provide Gaelic-medium education, they are asking what is to happen if they cannot recruit teachers or find adequate premises. It is a fact that there has been a shortage of Gaelic teachers for more than nine years, even before the Government came into power, and there is still a drastic shortage of Gaelic teachers.
At stages 1 and 2 we heard of the practical issues about the lack of teachers and also the lack of additional funding for Gaelic-medium provision. As the bill stands, COSLA is worried that it will cause parents to be disappointed as detailed assessments founder on a lack of teaching staff and insufficient resources.
I am unclear as to the Scottish Government’s presumption in favour of Gaelic when the local authority cannot—despite all its best efforts—recruit qualified teachers. I seek clarity on that point. Resources are not available when a presumption already exists. What action will the Government take in those circumstances? That would be helpful for local authorities to know.
Finally, Conservative members are delighted to support Mike Russell’s amendment 51.
I move amendment 45.
Tha e air leth cudthromach gu bheil foghlam tro mheadhan na Gàidhlig anns a’ bhile seo.
Following is the translation:
It is exceptionally important that Gaelic-medium education is in the bill.
The member continued in English.
Without doubt, parents groups have had a very strong influence on the growth and development of Gaelic-medium education. That role needs not just to be recognised but to be utilised to ensure continued community support.
Comann nam Pàrant has helped to drive forward Gaelic-medium education and represent the interests of parents who are enthusiastic about Gaelic education—including those parents who are not Gaelic speakers themselves. The organisation gave evidence during the bill’s progress in committee and it is right that it should now be named in the bill and given a role in the process.
The process of change is welcome. It takes forward a commitment for wider Gaelic education, but that will be all the stronger if the correct organisations are involved. I hope that the Government will accept amendment 51 and that members will support it. The amendment is entirely commensurate with the wider policy of parental involvement and it has wide support in the Gaelic communities.
The modest proposal in my amendment 52 is much narrower than a right to Gaelic-medium education, which many would favour, myself included. It relates to the degree of discretion that local authorities have to refuse requests for Gaelic-medium education.
The bill establishes a complex mechanism for assessing parental requests for GME. The major weakness, as I see it, is in the key section 10(7A), which provides:
“The education authority must decide to secure the provision of GMPE”—
that is, Gaelic-medium primary education—
“in the GMPE assessment area unless, having regard to the matters mentioned in subsection (6), the authority considers that it would be unreasonable to do so.”
Twelve matters are mentioned in subsection (6)—some of them have been alluded to this afternoon—as factors that are relevant to decisions, including the level of demand, the cost and the availability of premises.
Amendment 52 would simply remove the phrase “the authority considers that” so that the provision would read:
“The education authority must decide to secure the provision of GMPE in the GMPE assessment area unless, having regard to the matters mentioned in subsection (6), it would be unreasonable to do so.”
That change would ensure that the issue would be assessed in terms of objective reasonableness rather than the authority’s subjective perception of reasonableness. If an authority refused to provide GME, it would thereby be easier for parents to exercise their basic right to make an appeal under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.
It is 17 years since an additional local authority began to offer GME—that was Stirling Council—and quite a few authorities have a poor record. For local authorities to have too much discretion to decide on reasonableness would undermine the bill’s core purpose in relation to Gaelic.
On the other amendments in the group, I do not support my colleague Mary Scanlon providing additional escape clauses, but I support my colleague Michael Russell’s amendment 51. Mòran taing.
As John Finnie suggested, the minister initially offered Parliament and parents a clear, consistent process for assessing applications for Gaelic-medium education. Goaded by Mary Scanlon ever since, he has been dragged to a point where he is now promising a presumption in favour or, as he referred to it at stage 2, an entitlement. For the reasons that have been cited by Ms Scanlon and detailed by COSLA involving a lack of resources, including teachers, that commitment looks increasingly like a hostage to fortune.
Thankfully for the minister, he will not be left to deal with the angry and frustrated parents whose expectations have been unfairly raised by the bill. Councils, on the other hand, will again be left carrying the can. Over recent days, the historic concordat has never felt so historic.
We support Ms Scanlon’s amendments 45 to 50 and Mike Russell’s amendment 51, which, as he fairly said, is in keeping with the general thrust of parental involvement in education across the piece, but we have misgivings about Mr Finnie’s amendment 52.
I call the minister, Alasdair Allan.
Tapadh leibh, Oifigeir-riaghlaidh.
The bill delivers on our manifesto commitment for parents to have an entitlement to Gaelic-medium primary education where reasonable demand exists. Where there is that demand and the full assessment process that is envisaged in the bill identifies no fundamental obstacles to its provision, the authority should and will provide it. The full assessment process in section 10 is just that—an opportunity for authorities to look at all relevant matters in the round and decide how to take things forward.
I appreciate the interest that Ms Scanlon has taken in the bill. However, as I explained when similar amendments were lodged at stage 2, the provisions in amendments 45 to 50 would add to the initial assessment stage significant considerations that already feature in the full assessment and, in my view, are not suitable for inclusion at the filtering stage of the initial assessment.
I accept Ms Scanlon’s point about the shortage of and demand for Gaelic teachers nationally, but I am not so sure that I accept the point locally. I do not believe that the example that Ms Scanlon gives, which involves a council that has already advertised for a teacher for a non-existent post before the assessment process begins, is one that is likely to arise. However, I understand the spirit in which she has investigated the issues.
In the bill, we have aimed to make the initial assessment stage as light as possible, with minimal requirements on local authorities and parents at the requesting stage. If we are serious about promoting and supporting Gaelic, we need to create a system for assessing requests that parents understand and believe will give their request a fair hearing. Keeping the initial assessment process simple and straightforward and moving quickly to a full assessment will give parents that confidence.
Therefore, I cannot support amendments that would allow an authority to decide not to provide GMPE at the initial assessment stage with reference to just two factors in isolation. Those factors are relevant but they should be considered as part of the full assessment process. I ask Mary Scanlon to withdraw amendment 45 and not to move her other amendments in the group.
Mr Russell’s amendment 51, to include Comann nam Pàrant, sits squarely with the Scottish Government’s belief that those bodies with relevant expertise and interests in the matter of Gaelic-medium education should be asked for a view on an authority’s decision about whether there is a potential need to secure the provision of Gaelic-medium primary education in a certain assessment area. For that reason, I ask members to support Mr Russell’s amendment 51.
I turn to amendment 52 from John Finnie. The bill creates a strong presumption that Gaelic-medium primary education provision will be established where there is a wish for it and reasonable demand exists. Section 10(7A) places a duty on authorities to decide to secure the provision of Gaelic-medium primary education unless, having regard to the specific list of matters in section 10(6) as part of the full assessment process, the authority considers that it would be unreasonable to do so.
It is well established that local authorities must act reasonably. As such, an authority already has to act reasonably under section 10(7A) if concluding that, in its view, it would be unreasonable to provide Gaelic-medium primary education. Section 11(2) ensures that the authority is required to account for its decision with reference to its duty and each of the matters that it is required to have regard to.
It is right that such decisions lie with the local authority and the bill is clear about that. Amendment 52 would not change the matters on which the decision must be taken and justified or the basis of the decision, namely reasonableness. However, Mr Finnie’s amendment would ensure that the decision on whether it is unreasonable to provide GMPE must be taken and justified from an objective perspective rather than in the subjective view of anyone.
Let me emphasise that when an authority takes a decision after a full assessment of a parental request for Gaelic-medium primary education, it must have regard to a number of factors. The presumption is in favour of establishing Gaelic-medium primary education and, if an authority’s decision was against that, the authority would already have to demonstrate that that was because the provision of GMPE was unreasonable with reference to the specified factors. We have already taken steps to constrain the subjective nature of that decision and Mr Finnie’s amendment is in line with our stage 2 amendments. For those reasons, I welcome Mr Finnie’s amendment 52. I support him in moving amendment 52 and urge members to support it.
I invite Mary Scanlon to wind up and to say whether she intends to press or to withdraw amendment 45.
I am grateful for the points that have been made by members. I am also grateful to Liam McArthur for pointing out that I had to look at the SNP manifesto for 2007 to 2011 to see that an entitlement to Gaelic-medium education was promised, while all that we were getting in the legislation was an administrative process to look at parental assessments. However, I think that I have made some gains on the matter and we have moved on to a presumption of Gaelic-medium education.
There are a couple of points that I want to raise. I asked a question about the £25,000 that local authorities have to pay for the full assessment. Will there be additional funding from the Government for that? The minister can respond to that another day. I would also like to know where a local authority stands when there is a presumption to provide Gaelic-medium education, but despite every best effort by a local authority to recruit a teacher, it has been unable to do so. I would be happy to get an answer to that in correspondence from the minister.
Finally, I realise that the historic concordat died in the water a long time ago, but given that the amendments in my name all came from COSLA and the local authorities, will the minister continue talking to COSLA and the local authorities about the information that they are seeking?
Amendment 45, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 46 to 48 not moved.
Section 8—Duties of education authorities
Amendments 49 and 50 not moved.
Section 10—Full assessments
Amendment 51 moved—[Michael Russell].
16:00
The question is, that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: Yes.
Members: No.
There was a “No”. I will put the question again. The question is, that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: Yes.
Members: No.
I ask all the members who agree with the amendment to stay silent. I will call it again, because the two clerks and I heard a “No” being shouted from the Labour benches. I want silence, please, in the chamber. If there is a “No”, I want it shouted out very, very clearly.
Amendment 51 agreed to.
We move to amendment 52, in the name of John Finnie. [Interruption.] Order, please.
Amendment 52 moved—[John Finnie].
The question is, that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a one-minute division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Buchanan, Cameron (Lothian) (Con)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Abstentions
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 82, Against 5, Abstentions 28.
Amendment 52 agreed to.
Section 17—Additional support for learning
Group 9 is on rights under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. Amendment 53, in the name of Liam McArthur, is grouped with amendments 60 to 73, 16 and 74.
I will be as brief as I can be, notwithstanding the complexity of the issues and the importance of the underlying principles in the amendments in this group.
As at stage 2, my amendments are backed by a wide coalition of experts in the field, to whom I am extremely grateful.
The schedule to the bill extends a range of rights to children with additional support needs. At present, parents can exercise those rights on their child’s behalf. The bill seeks to put 12 to 15-year-olds on a similar footing to those aged 16 and over, by enabling them to act independently. I support that extension, but I am concerned by the bill’s approach.
The bill requires children successfully to negotiate two assessments before they can even begin to exercise their rights. The first assessment, which is on capacity—to establish whether a child has sufficient understanding to exercise a particular right—would be carried out by a local education authority or the additional support needs tribunal, depending on the right that is to be exercised. The second assessment is of the adverse impact on wellbeing. Ministers argue that that is needed in order to guard against a child being damaged by the experience of pursuing their rights.
The approach is, I believe, well intentioned but misguided. Exercising a right may be difficult for a child, but instead of looking at how the process can be made more child friendly, ministers appear to have ensured that only those judged by adults to be most resilient are ever likely to be able to exercise those rights, despite the fact that the bill creates a support service that is specifically designed to assist children in exercising their rights.
The Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991 already provides an excellent framework for establishing a child’s capacity. My amendments 53, 60, 61 and 63 to 75 therefore use the law that is currently in operation as the basis for assessing capacity, including a presumption of capacity for all children over the age of 12, unless proven otherwise.
Where there is dispute over a child’s capacity, the child can appeal to an ASN tribunal, but the starting point of the 1991 act is that as many children as possible should have the option to exercise their rights, regardless of whether they eventually choose to do so. That is consistent with what the minister said he wanted at stage 2.
The minister also expressed concern that
“these rights would not be nor can be absolute.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 1 December 2015; c 33.]
That implies that the approach that I was advocating would not allow for situations in which a child lacks capacity, which is not true. Some children may never be able to exercise those rights; again, the 1991 act makes provision for that. Yes, we must consider a child’s wellbeing, but we must do so more broadly, looking at the substance of a child’s request, rather than by making an initial assessment that prevents them from making the request in the first place.
I conclude by illustrating the problems that the bill creates. A child who wishes to make a disability discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010 would be required to bring their case to the additional support needs tribunal. Unlike the Education (Scotland) Bill, the 1991 act presumes capacity at 12 years of age, so a child pursuing such a claim is presumed to have capacity to do so from the age of 12. Where they have that capacity, they would not need to undertake further assessments before taking a case to the tribunal.
However, that same child will have to complete successfully both the capacity assessment and the adverse effect on wellbeing assessment before exercising one of the rights extended by the Education (Scotland) Bill. My amendments seek to remove both those assessments and to amend the 1991 act to ensure that, where rights are extended under the bill, the 1991 act will apply. Where there is dispute over capacity, there needs to be a way of resolving it. As such, I have ensured a route of appeal to the tribunal.
I fully support the extension of these rights to 12 to 15-year-olds. However, I want children to feel that exercising their rights is a positive experience, to feel supported and to be confident that they can exercise their rights without adults putting barriers in their way.
The 1991 act has acted as a framework for establishing children’s capacity for more than 20 years. Professionals are familiar with it and know that it works well in a wide range of scenarios. There is no reason why it could not work just as well in supporting children to exercise the rights extended to them by the bill.
I move amendment 53.
I think that everyone recognises that this is an exceedingly complex area of legislation, not least because of the diverse assessments of those who have additional support needs and, most especially, the growth in the number of children who are identified as having additional support needs. In recent years, the number of professionals who are involved in working with those young people has also grown considerably, and increased responsibilities have been put on local authorities and other stakeholders.
I am grateful to the minister for his willingness to engage on section 17—a section that still contains a little lack of clarity when it comes to interpretation of specific policies, most especially in relation to the definition of the word “capacity”. That point was made in the committee’s stage 1 report, and it has also been made by many groups that represent children and young people. It is exactly why we have been left with an extensive number of amendments that all seek to clarify the language of section 17.
The minister made the fair point that we must comply with rulings in relation to the European convention on human rights. Existing legislation in Scotland prevents some listing of specific capacities, lest that be discriminatory in any way when it comes to the offer of assistance to people who have ASN. We totally accept that. However, the word “capacity” itself creates difficulty with the interpretation of the bill, and that is reflected in some of the thinking in Mr McArthur’s amendments. In amendment 62, I have resubmitted at stage 3 my earlier proposal in order to probe the minister further about the wording of section 17. We are in danger of some general language being misinterpreted.
I thank Liam McArthur for his presentation of this sensitive and important issue. Although I recognise and understand his intent, I continue to disagree with his proposed approach.
The Government is committed to enhancing, promoting and respecting children’s rights wherever it can. We also have a responsibility to ensure that the wellbeing of children and young people is at the heart of what we do. We need to respect and take into account the views and responsibilities of parents and carers and to ensure that our approach strikes an appropriate balance between all those matters.
Amendments 53, 60, 61 and 63 seek to significantly change the definition of when a child has capacity to exercise rights under the 2004 act, to remove any statutory requirement for authorities to assess a child’s capacity and wellbeing before they exercise a right, and to extend the rights under the 2004 act to children of any age.
Education authorities should take an evidence-based decision about whether there would be any issues in relation to each individual child exercising a right under the 2004 act. The requirement to assess capacity and wellbeing is the correct approach to take, rather than for capacity simply to be presumed for children aged 12 and over, with no statutory assessment for children aged below 12.
If Liam McArthur’s amendments were accepted, any issues or problems would emerge only once a child proceeded to exercise a right, which could create a situation in which further additional support was required. My preference is to deal with such issues up front and transparently, with appeal rights for children and parents to the additional support needs tribunal if the education authority’s decisions are felt to be incorrect.
I am aware of the comparison of presumption of capacity in disability claims at tribunals and the assessment of capacity under the provisions. However, the right to make a claim about disability discrimination is a single right that is exercised in the formal setting of a tribunal at which the child would be expected to be legally represented. We propose a range of rights, of which a handful relate to tribunals. They enable the child to be central in the requests, decisions and information about their support. The child may or may not choose to be supported or represented in those processes, and we must establish at the start whether there is likely to be any adverse effect on the child.
Concerns have been raised that there may be a conflict of interests due to the requirements on authorities to assess capacity and adverse impact on wellbeing. However, no organisation is better placed to establish a child’s requirement for support, their capacity or the potential for adverse impact on their wellbeing. That is no different from a lawyer deciding whether a child has capacity in a legal case or a medical professional deciding capacity in relation to a medical intervention. The provisions, of course, provide the safeguard of an appeal should the child or their parent feel that a mistake has been made.
I turn to Liz Smith’s amendment 62, on the definition of “lacking capacity” in relation to young people. I recognise the points that she made and her motivation in making them. However, my view remains that the level of detail that amendment 62 brings to the definition is not required, particularly given the stage 2 changes to remove the assessment of a young person’s capacity prior to their exercising rights under the 2004 act. There is, therefore, no longer a need to include a detailed definition in the bill, as a young person will be presumed to have capacity under the 2004 act unless it is clear that they do not have sufficient understanding to exercise their rights under that act. We also intend to produce guidance on when an authority might consider a young person to be lacking sufficient understanding to do something under the 2004 act. I hope that Liz Smith finds that that assurance addresses at least some of her concerns.
16:15The amendments that follow—specifically amendments 64 to 71 and 74—are consequential on Liam McArthur’s earlier amendments that relate to the definition and assessment of capacity. They seek to remove amendments to various provisions in the 2004 act and to replace them with amendments that provide that children of any age may exercise rights, provided that they have a general understanding of what it means for them to do so. For the reasons that I have already explained, we cannot support the amendments, which include no safeguard as to whether children, including children of a very young age, are equipped to cope with the processes that are associated with the exercise of rights under the 2004 act. Unfortunately, the drafting of some of the amendments is not entirely clear, particularly amendment 70, where there is ambiguity about the role of parents.
The remaining amendments, 72 and 73, are also consequential and seek to extend the remit of the children’s support service that is established by the bill to support all children who are considering using their rights and not just those aged 12 and over. For the reasons that I have already given, I cannot support that approach.
The provisions in the bill significantly extend the rights of children, but they also provide appropriate safeguards. They ensure that children will not have to cope with information, processes and decisions that could be detrimental to their wellbeing. They ensure that parents and carers are involved appropriately, and they provide an established route of appeal where those safeguards can be rigorously tested and challenged if a child or parent feels that they are being applied wrongly or unfairly.
Amendment 16 is a technical amendment that strengthens the process of Parliamentary consideration of any regulations that are made under new section 3AA of the 2004 act. We lodged the amendment to ensure consistency with any other regulations that are made under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 to change the list of SHANARRI—safe, healthy, active, nurtured, achieving, respected, responsible and included—indicators that are to be considered in assessing adverse impact on wellbeing.
In conclusion, I cannot support the amendments in the names of Liam McArthur or Liz Smith for the reasons that I have set out. I therefore urge Liam McArthur to withdraw amendment 53 and not to move his other amendments in the group, and I urge Liz Smith not to move amendment 62. I invite members to support amendment 16 in the name of Angela Constance.
This debate goes back to stage 1 and the concerns that were raised by the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and the Scottish Human Rights Commission. They were concerned that the extension of rights to 12 to 15-year-olds, which they fully supported, had what appeared at the time to be unintended consequences. My recollection is that, at the time, the cabinet secretary and ministers indicated that they would seek to address those concerns. It is clear from the briefings that we have received from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner and the Scottish Human Rights Commission that those concerns have not been addressed, as Liam McArthur said. For those reasons, we support the amendments in Liam McArthur’s name.
I thank Iain Gray for his support. He rightly points to the coalition of experts in the field who have been supportive of the amendments and who have raised the issues since stage 1—the Children and Young People’s Commissioner and the Scottish Human Rights Commission, as well as Govan Law Centre, Enable Scotland and Inclusion Scotland.
I thank Liz Smith for fairly articulating the linguistic minefield that we have been operating in since stage 1. She is right to flag up some of the ECHR issues that that coalition brought to the committee’s attention at the outset.
I also thank the minister for his remarks and for his willingness to engage with me between stage 2 and stage 3 to see whether there was a way to address the concerns that I and the coalition have. I think that it is fair to say that we reached an honest disagreement at the end of the process, which is reflected in the exchanges this afternoon. He talks about determination to extend rights but put in place safeguards. I am still of the view that the 1991 act provides a framework that allows us to do just that. It has demonstrated over the past 20 years its capability in that regard.
I conclude with the words of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner, who said that the bill places children in a position where they are given the impression that they can exercise their rights independently, yet in reality they are beholden to adults to assess that they are capable of doing so. With the introduction of the support service and other measures in the bill, we can have confidence that the 1991 act is up to the job of extending those rights and of providing the safeguards.
On that basis, I press amendment 53.
The question is, that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brennan, Lesley (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Buchanan, Cameron (Lothian) (Con)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 41, Against 73, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 53 disagreed to.
Section 17B—Learning hours
We move to group 10. Amendment 6, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 7 to 9, 54 to 56, 10 to 14, 14A, 57, 15, 58 and 75.
Amendments 6 to 15 make a series of improvements to section 17B of the bill, refining the provisions brought forward at stage 2 to protect the length of the primary school week. Before describing those changes in detail, I would like to respond to some of the—in my view misguided—criticisms surrounding our decision to introduce those provisions.
I turn first to the lack of formal consultation. I have been absolutely clear, both in my representations to the Education and Culture Committee at stage 2 and in all the subsequent discussions on the matter, that regulations made under section 17B will be underpinned by a robust and inclusive consultation exercise. That is why the bill provisions have been drafted as they have, intentionally providing us with the necessary flexibility to respond to the outcome of those discussions, which I hope will start later this year.
We have also been criticised for stating our view that a primary school week consisting of 25 hours of contact time with a qualified teacher seems a reasonable starting point for those discussions. I believe our position to be an entirely reasonable one. After all, it simply reflects the level of provision that is currently made available in the vast majority of schools across the country. Further, it is a level of provision that teachers, parents and—most importantly—pupils have come to expect over many years and which has survived through periods of significant transformative change within our system, not least with the introduction of curriculum for excellence. To start anywhere else would therefore seem to me to be rather counterintuitive.
As I have said, we are keen to listen to the representations that will undoubtedly be made, particularly in relation to the level of provision within infant primary years, where there is some slight variation in practice across the country. Let me make it clear, however, that the decisions that we reach will not be driven by the same financial considerations that have underpinned the local proposals to reduce the school week that have been brought forward in recent years. Our children’s education is simply too important for that.
I have brought forward my amendments in order to prevent the type of postcode lottery that would undoubtedly have developed if local councils had proceeded with those proposals. It remains absolutely my view that that cannot be allowed to happen and that to allow it would be short-sighted and inconsistent with this Government’s commitment to deliver an education system that delivers for all. For those reasons, it will come as no surprise to members that I reject Mary Scanlon’s amendments 58 and 75, which seek to remove the learning hours duty from the bill outright.
For different reasons, I do not support amendment 54, which Mary Scanlon has lodged to ensure that the learning hours duty cannot be imposed before the beginning of the 2018-19 school year. I fully accept that education authorities and grant-aided schools require advance warning of the learning hours duty and time to ensure that they are able to comply with it. As I have already made clear this afternoon, I accept too that we must take the necessary time to consult fully and widely on the detailed implementation of the duty through regulations. It is also important that we listen to stakeholders and that we understand fully the implications of the duty as it is imposed. It is important that we get it right.
I do not believe, however, that it is necessary or appropriate for a timetable to be included explicitly on the face of the bill—not least an arbitrary timetable that takes no account of what will doubtless be an important consultation feedback on the matter.
The changes that are proposed by my amendments at stage 3 are relatively minor. They are designed to clarify aspects of the legislation and to ensure that we have the necessary flexibility to accommodate situations in which it would be entirely legitimate to offer a reduced level of provision.
To start with, amendments 6 and 8 are minor drafting changes that are required to improve on the readability of the section and to leave out one unnecessary word.
Amendments 7 and 9 should be considered together. Amendment 7 makes it clear that the duty on education authorities and grant-aided schools to provide the prescribed number of learning hours is subject to the power that is set out in new section 17B(3), which is introduced by amendment 9. That subsection provides for fewer than the prescribed number of hours to be provided in certain circumstances, which are set out in new subsection (3A).
Those circumstances cover situations where an individual pupil’s wellbeing would be adversely affected as a result of the pupil receiving the prescribed number of learning hours. They also include situations where, due to matters outwith its control, it would be impractical for the school to provide the prescribed number of hours. That could occur, for example, due to severe weather. New subsection (3A)(c) will allow ministers to prescribe, through regulations, other circumstances in which fewer hours could be provided.
Amendment 9 also introduces new subsections (3B) and (3C). New subsection (3B) requires that, when the prescribed hours are not made available due to the circumstances that I have just described, the authority or school must make available reduced hours. New subsection (3C) defines “reduced hours” as the prescribed hours less those hours that would have been provided but for the circumstances arising.
The result is to place a cap on the reduction in the number of learning hours that the child receives. The learning hours can be reduced only in so far as they need to be reduced to address the relevant circumstances under subsection (3A).
In contrast, Mary Scanlon’s amendments 55 and 56 seek to disapply the learning hours duty in its entirety—in relation to all pupils or groups of pupils in the case of amendment 55, and to whole schools in the case of amendment 56—where it is deemed that the provision of the prescribed hours is not in those pupils’ best interests.
Once the duty is disapplied under those proposals, we would return to the status quo, under which no requirement is placed on education authorities or managers or on grant-aided schools to provide a particular number of—or, indeed, any—learning hours. I have already made it clear that I do not find that position tenable, and on that basis I cannot support amendments 55 and 56.
Amendment 9 also makes it clear that, when an authority or school is considering reducing the number of hours that are made available to a child due to a concern around their wellbeing, it must do so with reference to the SHANARRI indicators that are already recognised in law through the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. The amendment will therefore ensure that the prescribed hours can be reduced only in so far as it can be demonstrated that they impact adversely on the extent to which the child will be safe, healthy, achieving, nurtured, active, respected, responsible and included.
16:30Amendment 14 provides for ministers to modify the list of SHANARRI indicators in regulations following consultation. I have made it clear throughout the process that we are committed to consulting on the regulations through which the learning hours duty will take effect.
I commend the policy intention behind Mary Scanlon’s amendment 57, and I would be happy to place in statute a requirement on the Scottish ministers to consult in advance of making regulations. Amendment 57 as drafted, however, falls short of requiring statutory consultation to take place in relation to all aspects of the learning hours regulations, focusing instead just on the number of hours to be prescribed.
Amendment 14A ensures that the consultation duty is more comprehensive by amending amendment 14 to require the Scottish ministers to consult in relation to the number of learning hours, the nature of those learning hours, the additional circumstances in which fewer hours can be made available and any modification of the list of SHANARRI indicators against which consideration of any adverse impact of the prescribed hours should be made.
I believe, therefore, that amendment 14A gives better effect than amendment 57 to Mary Scanlon’s policy intention, and I ask her not to move amendment 57.
Section 17B(4) of the bill currently allows ministers to prescribe a different number of learning hours for different purposes and for different types of pupil, thereby providing scope to adjust the duty to reflect the needs of particular groups. Amendment 10 extends that flexibility by allowing ministers to define learning hours differently for different groups or for different purposes. For some, “learning hours” might be taken to mean contact time with a registered teacher. For others, such as those with additional support needs, the nature of provision may look quite different.
Furthermore, amendment 10 allows ministers to specify through regulations circumstances in which fewer than the prescribed number of hours may be made available for a particular group of pupils or for a particular purpose. Any such regulations will be subject to affirmative procedure as a result of amendment 15.
Amendment 11 allows ministers to make transitional or transitory provision in relation to the learning hours duty. That would allow ministers to introduce the new duty in an incremental way—for example, by requiring that a certain number of hours should be made available by a certain date, climbing to a higher number of hours by a date further in the future. Amendments 12 and 13 are minor amendments that are consequential to that change.
Taken together, the amendments will deliver a strengthened set of provisions that will be well placed to accommodate the findings of the consultation that will follow. For that reason, I ask members to support my amendments 6 to 15 and not to support the remaining amendments in the group.
I move amendment 6.
I call Mary Scanlon to speak to amendment 54 and other amendments in the group. I have no spare time left, so I ask you to make your contribution as briefly as you reasonably can, please.
I am delighted to hear that consultation will now take place on the measures before us today, but I remind the Government that consultation takes place before stage 1 or even before stage 2, and not, generally speaking, after stage 3.
Highland Council has taken pride in its long-standing, close and constructive relationship with the Scottish Government. I put on record that, as an MSP for the Highlands and Islands since 1999, I have never had any complaint whatsoever about the quality of teaching in any Highland and Islands school.
Highland Council was, therefore, more than surprised by the announcement, without any notice or consultation, of a proposal to legislate for a 25-hour week in all Scottish primary schools, regardless of local circumstances and four days before the Education and Culture Committee considered amendments to the bill at stage 2.
Objections came from Margaret Davidson, leader of the independent group; Alasdair Christie, leader of the Lib Dems; Jimmy Gray, leader of the Labour group; and Drew Millar, chairman of the education committee and leader of the Highland Alliance group. Most Highland primary schools have always operated a 22.5-hour week for primaries 1 to 3. That involves 272 schools from the north of Sutherland to Badenoch and Strathspey, and it is done largely because of the length of the day for young children, who may have to travel considerable distances to school.
Young children travelling to school for a 25-hour week could be away from home for more than 35 hours and travelling more frequently back and forth in the dark. There is no educational evidence linking a 25-hour school week to better attainment. Although all local authorities operate 25-hour school weeks for at least P3 to P7, a number of them successfully operate 22.5-hour school weeks for younger pupils.
Moray Council has said that implementing the measure will require an extra 13 teachers. Highland Council’s director of care and learning has said:
“It would mean providing more than 1000 extra teaching hours, and recruiting more than 30 additional teachers, at a time when it is difficult to recruit to existing vacancies, and this number of available teachers simply does not exist.”
COSLA was never consulted on the issue. Its letter of 22 January states:
“There was not a hint at any meeting between COSLA, Government officials or the Cabinet Secretary that a Government amendment on the length of the school week was even being considered, let alone was a likely prospect.”
In the cabinet secretary’s response to me, she said that teachers and parents have been championing the matter for months. They certainly have not been championing it in the Highlands. However, in the same response, there was a glimmer of hope and understanding in response to the new duty, when the cabinet secretary stated:
“it will be necessary to provide a degree of flexibility, enabling Ministers and education authorities to make exceptions for individual children or groups of learners in certain limited circumstances. For example, pupils who live far from their school and whose travel time lengthens their day to the extent that, in the younger stages in particular, it may be inappropriate for them to spend as long at school as others”.
The length of the school day does not apply to an individual pupil—it gets dark at the same time for every pupil in the school.
Amendment 54 seeks to delay implementation of the measure for two years until councils can plan and recruit additional teachers and reallocate funding. However, since lodging the amendments, I note that there is a new financial memorandum. Paragraph 28 of it states that the requirements will be in place for the year 2018-19. I seek clarity on that because, if that is the case, I will not move my amendment.
The supplementary financial memorandum, which is not part of the bill and has not been endorsed by the Parliament, states that an additional 120 teachers will be needed across six education authorities. We trust that the Government will pay the extra £4.8 million identified that councils will require to fund the proposal.
Amendment 55 seeks to exempt a whole education authority, such as Highland, from implementing the 25-hour week for children in primaries 1 to 3, and amendment 56 seeks that individual schools, particularly in the most remote and rural areas—in north-west Sutherland, for example—be considered for exemption.
I understand that the Government has accepted the principle in amendment 57 and will, in fact, go further, so I will not be moving it.
We will be supporting amendment 9, which states the exemption criteria for individual pupils, although, obviously, I would wish it to go further.
I speak in support of the amendments in the name of Angela Constance on learning hours.
During the stage 1 debate, I highlighted Scottish Labour’s intention to lodge amendments to the bill to guarantee primary school pupils at least 25 hours teaching time a week. I am pleased that we are seeing progress on the issue and that the Government has lodged an amendment.
It is an issue of great importance to the mums, dads and carers who I represent in Dunfermline, just as it is important to the mums, dads and carers right across Scotland. Parents quite rightly want to know, as the cabinet secretary said, that their children’s access to learning is not based on a postcode lottery. Yet that is what parents face, with Reform Scotland estimating a variation of 149 hours a year in the teaching that our children receive. Although pre-school children have a statutory right to 15 hours of free early education a week, there is no such requirement for school-age children beyond the stipulation of 190 days teaching a year.
Scottish Labour will support the Government’s amendments on learning hours, because they are about protecting the rights of pupils and teachers. They will ensure that every child in Scotland, wherever they live or go to school, will have their learning hours protected, and they will ensure that parents do not face a fight to protect the school week as councils are forced to think the unthinkable in trying to meet their budget challenges. Our children should not pay the price of cuts.
The Government’s amendments are not perfect. We would prefer primary legislation, rather than regulations, to guarantee a statutory number of learning hours, and we would like further assurances that teaching time will be with a registered teacher. Nevertheless, we are pleased that there is progress. Every child in Scotland should have a guaranteed number of learning hours. We will support the amendments in Angela Constance’s name.
During the committee’s consideration of the bill we repeatedly heard witnesses complain about the Government’s failure to consult. We were even put in the position of having to take additional evidence at stage 2 because of the rather ham-fisted approach to managing the bill. However, we were denied an opportunity to consider the merits, the costs and the implications of the Government’s proposal to mandate learning hours for every school in the country. Why? Because the cabinet secretary failed to inform the committee that she was even minded to introduce such amendments at stage 2.
At the 11th hour, to avoid being outflanked by the Labour Party, which had made its intentions clear, and to curry favour with the Educational Institute of Scotland, the minister took it upon herself to legislate. She did so without consulting local authorities, without having evidence on the need for or cost of the policy, and with utter contempt for the committee and its members and for the Parliament.
Amendments 6 to 15 show that the minister is still scrambling around to make sense of her proposals. Meanwhile, the revised financial memorandum reveals the cost of the proposed approach to be around £5 million per year, along with a further loss of flexibility for local authorities. That comes at a time when the Government is proposing to cut council budgets by £500 million, which will have inevitable consequences for local education spending.
Mary Scanlon was quite right to say that for the cabinet secretary to offer a consultation after writing a policy into legislation with no warning and no evidence is pretty insulting. Local authorities in Scotland deserve better, this Parliament deserves better, and teachers, parents and pupils deserve better from their legislators.
I call the cabinet secretary to wind up the debate.
I make absolutely no apology for this Government’s conviction that a child in Scotland, wherever he or she lives, should be entitled to receive a consistent education offer. That lies at the heart of our decision to establish a learning hours duty.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Perhaps later.
No parent should have to fight to protect from cost-cutting proposals the number of hours of education that their child receives. To sacrifice our children’s education in the name of savings is quite simply to pay too great a price.
The amendments in this group that I lodged are aimed at clarifying and refining the provisions that we introduced at stage 2 and ensuring that the bill is sufficiently flexible to be able to accommodate—now and in future—the varying needs and circumstances that could arise and might impact on delivery of the learning hours duty.
As I said in the committee, it has always been our intention that consultation will be key in taking forward the provisions and developing the regulations.
Even if that were correct, does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that there has been a complete lack of consultation with the people who must deliver the education—the local authorities?
That is really interesting, because it gets to the nub of the matter. I have stood in this chamber and answered oral parliamentary questions on proposals from Falkirk. When the Government last attended a Cabinet meeting in the Highlands there was a public question-and-answer session, and I was asked, in front of Highland Council councillors and the council leader, about the proposals. COSLA—to be blunt—was never off the phone to officials, because Labour had been quite open about its views and intentions.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
No, thank you.
Our decision to legislate follows representations from key partners, including the national parent forum of Scotland and EIS—
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Mr McArthur, please sit down.
Mr McArthur might want to sit on his hands at a time when there is a real risk of local authorities the length and breadth of the country cutting the school week. I, for one, will not be accused of sitting on my hands or missing an opportunity.
On the notion that there is no evidence that more hours lead to better outcomes, we are protecting the number of hours as they currently stand. This is about safeguarding our children’s education.
16:45
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
No, thank you.
No one can suggest that reduced teaching time will improve outcomes, and no council has presented proposals to reduce the school week as a means of driving up attainment. Councils’ proposals have been firmly focused on making savings.
On a conciliatory note, I say to Mrs Scanlon that it is not our intention to introduce the regulations before 2018. As I said in my opening remarks, we do not think that it is appropriate to put the timetable in the bill, as we want to have the full consultation.
I am very proud that we have taken decisive action to prevent our children’s education from being sacrificed in the name of financial services, and I will make no apologies to the Tories or the Liberals on that account.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Amendments 7 to 9 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.
Amendment 54 not moved.
Amendment 55 moved—[Mary Scanlon].
The question is, that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brennan, Lesley (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 17, Against 97, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 55 disagreed to.
Amendment 56 moved—[Mary Scanlon].
The question is, that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brennan, Lesley (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 17, Against 96, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 56 disagreed to.
Amendments 10 to 13 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.
Amendment 14 moved—[Angela Constance].
Amendment 14A moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.
Amendment 14, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment 57 not moved.
Amendment 15 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.
Amendment 58 not moved.
After section 18A
We move to group 11. Amendment 59, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, is grouped with amendment 76.
I see that only four minutes are left. Does that mean that I should take two minutes and the minister will take two, or can I overrun?
Just take as long as you need, Mr Chisholm.
That sounds very generous.
There is guidance about administering medication and meeting the other healthcare needs of children in schools, but the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland said in a report two or three years ago that it was extensively ignored, and there is no reason to believe that the forthcoming guidance that is being worked on will be any different. That leads in some cases to the enforced absence of children, while in others it leads to parents having to come to school to administer medication or provide other healthcare support. Sometimes, children in school simply do not get the help that is required.
That is a further factor that contributes to educational inequality, and it often involves a double disadvantage because, statistically, children who are at a socioeconomic disadvantage are overrepresented among pupils with ill health. Therefore, the issue is relevant to the bill’s main theme.
Amendment 59 recognises the importance of guidance, which it says that education authorities should have regard to. There would be a much better prospect of compliance if it was required by statute. Part of the problem seems to have been the failure of any one particular authority—the health board, the education authority or whoever—to take responsibility. Amendment 59 would make it clear that the education authority
“must ensure that adequate arrangements are made for the provision”
of assistance that is needed.
The problem was brought to my attention by Action for Sick Children Scotland, which has been concerned for some time about the extent to which children’s healthcare needs are not being met in various educational settings. That is a matter not just of educational equality, as I have emphasised, but of children’s fundamental rights. Recent research suggests that 15 per cent of children have conditions that impact on their education, and although not all those children have long-term chronic conditions, the fact remains that the issue affects a large number of children.
The Government may say that the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2009 addresses the matter, but it does not refer specifically to medical assistance. More fundamentally, in practice the reality is that nobody feels that there is any statutory obligation to meet the healthcare needs in question.
The children concerned cannot fulfil their potential without the help that is required, so I pay tribute to all the educational support staff and others in schools who discharge their duty. Today, let us put in place the training and anything else that is required so that all those children have their healthcare needs met and we do not end up with new guidance that is widely ignored in the same way as the present guidance is.
I move amendment 59.
I thank Malcolm Chisholm for lodging amendments 59 and 76, both of which I have considered carefully.
Amendment 59 seeks to insert a new section in the bill that, in turn, would insert a new section 56F in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, to place a legislative requirement on education authorities to make
“adequate arrangements ... during school hours”
to support any
“pupil who requires assistance with the administration of medicines or health care procedures”
and to have due regard to guidance. Amendment 76 is consequential and seeks to amend the long title of the bill to take account of amendment 59.
I do not think that we need further primary legislation in the area. There is already a legislative and policy framework that ensures that such children and young people get the support that they need. Under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, NHS boards must secure the medical inspection, supervision and treatment of pupils in schools. Education authorities help them to discharge those responsibilities. The amendments would cause confusion as to which body was primarily responsible.
The 2009 act requires authorities to identify, provide for and review pupils’ need for support, including support that arises from health or medical issues. The Equality Act 2010 also requires responsible bodies to make reasonable adjustments for pupils with a disability. In addition, through the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, we are introducing new provisions on the child’s plan, which include a requirement for interagency planning. It is for practitioners across education, health and other appropriate agencies to work together in accordance with that legislation and policy context to play their part in improving outcomes for children and young people who require medication and healthcare support.
Nevertheless, I am mindful of the need to keep things under review. As Mr Chisholm intimated, the Scottish Government has guidance on the administration of medicine and the provision of healthcare in schools, which is under review in partnership with stakeholders. We will ensure that the guidance continues to address the issues that the member has raised.
I have clearly set out why I do not believe that Malcolm Chisholm’s amendments are needed. There is an existing legislative and policy framework, and we are working in partnership with a range of stakeholders to review guidance. I am happy to meet Mr Chisholm to discuss practice and implementation. For those reasons, I ask him to withdraw amendment 59 and not to move amendment 76.
As we have passed the agreed time limit, I consider it necessary under rule 9.8.4A(a) of standing orders to allow the debate on group 11 to continue beyond the limit in order to allow those with the right to speak on the amendments in the group to do so.
I thank the cabinet secretary for her kind offer of a meeting. I would never turn down a meeting with her, so I shall take her up on that. However, I disagree with what she said. She said that the amendments would cause confusion, but the substance of her speech indicated that there already is confusion.
We have health legislation and we have the additional support for learning legislation, which is focused on local authorities. Part of the problem is that nobody knows who has responsibility for this area. Over and above the confusion in the legislative framework, which she described, the reality is that nobody believes that there is any statutory requirement to fulfil such obligations. I argue that amendment 59 deals with the existing confusion and presents a simple solution to the problem.
I will disappoint the cabinet secretary by pressing amendment 59, but I welcome the offer of a meeting with her.
The question is, that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brennan, Lesley (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 42, Against 69, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 59 disagreed to.
Schedule—Modifications of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004
Amendment 60 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The question is, that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brennan, Lesley (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 42, Against 68, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 60 disagreed to.
Amendment 61 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The question is, that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brennan, Lesley (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Hilton, Cara (Dunfermline) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (Ind)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Glasgow) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 41, Against 68, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 61 disagreed to.
Amendments 62 to 73 not moved.
Amendment 16 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.
Amendment 74 not moved.
Long title
Amendments 75 and 76 not moved.
That ends consideration of amendments.
Previous
Topical Question Time