Education
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5334, in the name of Margaret Smith, on education.
This has been a bad week for the Government. No matter how the First Minister tries to spin it, this is a week that he will try to forget. Not only has he lost an education minister, he has lost credibility. His previous threats to resign have been seen for what they were—bluff and hot air. It has not worked out the way Alex Salmond planned it at all, with the launch of a bill that is destined to fail and the end of a cabinet minister who was destined to fail.
In the past two years, education spokespeople of all Opposition parties have come to enjoy our regular Thursday morning double period of nat bashing. Much of that time has been spent trading memories of the 2007 election—memories of promises made and promises broken—but as we entered this week it was the SNP's election slogan "It's time" that stuck in my memory. There was no doubt in our minds that the previous Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning's time was up and she had to go. A shoogly peg can hold for only so long. There was no doubt that she had lost the support and confidence of key partners in education, particularly our colleagues in local government, and that what was required was not just a fresh face but a fresh start.
Before I go any further, however, I say that I wish Fiona Hyslop well in her new post. I know that she probably hoped that she would never have to face the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee again, but she will be back to cover the culture element of her new brief. I am sure that she will look forward to that. I do not doubt for a second Fiona Hyslop's determination to improve Scottish education, and it would be churlish not to mention achievements such as the abolition of the graduate endowment and the passage of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill only a few days ago. The problems that have beset the Scottish National Party over education are not simply the fault of one woman. Let us be honest: education may be the subject of this morning's debate, but it is not the only area in which the SNP's promises have not been met. Messrs Salmond and Swinney stand—or sit—before us equally culpable for the failures of the past and for systemic policy failures that are often built around a concordat that cannot and will not deliver.
In wishing the outgoing cabinet secretary well in her new post, I must also welcome the new cabinet secretary to his role. Having had my first brief but constructive meeting with him, I am sure that he will attack his new job with his customary reserve. I am pleased that the new cabinet secretary shares our determination to see his appointment as a fresh start and an opportunity for better working across the Parliament, although I thought that the First Minister rather undersold him by describing him simply as a great party organiser, given that most of us think that we are witnessing a political resurrection akin to that of Lord Mandelson.
We remain committed to finding solutions that work. We welcome the opportunity to debate the best way in which to deliver education services and we will not discount ideas out of hand. We believe that there should be more devolution of power to headteachers, for example. Our main focus will always be on what will help to raise attainment. However, we are as instinctively worried about a policy of privatising our schools this week as we were about the Government's policy to nationalise them last week. We will not attack councils or threaten them with the centralisation and nationalisation of schools and we will not run down Scotland's teachers.
We will not be complacent. We acknowledge, for example, that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report that highlights the class-based achievement gap describes one of the central problems that we must tackle through practical changes. We will seek to compare and contrast our attainments with those of other countries, but we remain convinced that the comprehensive Scottish education system is basically sound. What we must do—and what we will challenge the cabinet secretary to do—is to build on the firm foundations of that system and find ways in which we can make a good system better.
We know that the new cabinet secretary has a track record of thinking the unthinkable, and often publishing or saying it. Councils have already reacted somewhat angrily to his description of them as "arrogant, mealy-mouthed and domineering". Mr Russell could certainly never be called mealy-mouthed. In 2007, some of his more challenging views were deleted from his book "Grasping the Thistle" before the First Minister would allow him to stand. The book is an interesting read, although I have not managed to get my hands on a copy yet, because it is selling like hot cakes. It includes some interesting ideas—the abolition of corporation tax, privatisation of the national health service, an end to universal benefits, education vouchers, and treating children and parents as customers. If Annabel Goldie had read it on Saturday, the Tories might have been a bit quicker to support our no confidence motion.
However, no matter what the new cabinet secretary brings to the post, the past two years speak for themselves. Teacher numbers have fallen by 2,300, class sizes have reduced so slowly that it would take 80 years to reach the SNP's election target, and greater numbers of post-probationary teachers than ever before are struggling to secure jobs. Instead of commissioning new schools, we have the floundering Scottish Futures Trust, and increases in student support fall woefully short of the dump the debt commitment that was made to Scotland's students and their families.
The SNP's consistent response to any criticism for those failings has been to blame anyone but its own Government. Teacher numbers are down, but that is the councils' fault. Delays with and a lack of clarity about the curriculum for excellence show that teachers need to do more professional development. Class sizes—well, that goes back to the councils again. The truth is that the SNP made promises that it knew it could not keep. In recent months, we have heard time and again, most forcefully last week, that the Government does not employ teachers or deliver services so it cannot be held responsible for failures, but we all know that, when we shared hustings platforms with other candidates in 2007, the SNP did not express any of those caveats on its key populist policies. It said that it would deliver on class sizes, on the maintenance of teacher numbers, on matching school building brick for brick, and on student debt. It centralised the policy, and when that did not work it localised the blame. The historic concordat, which we were told over and over again hailed a new dawn in the relationship between the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Holyrood, is surely now just that—historic.
It was surely the previous cabinet secretary's desperate threats to take back control of schools from locally elected councils that signalled the beginning of the end. Pat Watters of COSLA said that some of the "hidden threats" that Fiona Hyslop made were
"a million miles away from the working relationship we thought we had developed."
The breakdown in trust is clear from the First Minister's press release that confirmed the demotion, in which he stated:
"Schools policy has reached a difficult period with our disagreement with many local authorities about their failure to reduce class sizes by sustaining teacher numbers, while we have achieved a new record low in primary school class sizes."
[Laughter.] Maybe it is just me, but I do not remember hearing our councils pledging to cut class sizes. I remember that the SNP promised to do that. We say to the SNP, "The concordat was yours, the class size pledge was yours, and the blame, too, is yours."
The reality is that the Government trumpeted the end of ring fencing but failed to put in place adequate mechanisms to ensure that councils delivered what national Government promised. Nowhere in the concordat did COSLA sign up to maintaining teacher numbers, and in no single outcome agreement is there a commitment to reduce class sizes.
Even when the cabinet secretary acted to try to support reduced class sizes, she did not defend the promise of class sizes of 18 for primary 1 to primary 3; she simply focused on delivering classes of less than 26 in P1, which was a commitment that the previous Executive was well on its way to delivering. That was yet another U-turn from the SNP: a Government that makes so many U-turns that it ends up going round in circles.
Reducing class sizes is surely a policy on which we must and should find common cause. The Liberal Democrats delivered smaller class sizes in government, and we remain convinced of their value, particularly in deprived areas. If we are serious about tackling inequalities—[Interruption.] If we are serious about tackling inequalities, we must be serious—[Interruption.]
The Presiding Office: Order. I am sorry, Ms Smith. Conversations should not take place at the same time as a member is speaking.
I appreciate that, Presiding Officer.
If we are serious about tackling inequalities—I say it for the third time—we must be serious about focusing on early years support for those who need it most.
In a debate in 2002, Mike Russell described reducing class sizes as
"the single most important policy."
He told the Parliament:
"To implement our proposals in Scotland, we would need"
3,000 extra teachers, which
"At full operation … equates to £105 million per year. Teacher training costs would need to be boosted by £56 million over seven years and maintained at an additional £3.1 million thereafter."—[Official Report, 7 February 2002; c 6170.]
We have yet to see that investment materialise.
We know that in order to achieve smaller classes, we need more teachers. Our 2007 manifesto was clear and costed; we said that we would increase teacher numbers. The SNP promised to
"maintain teacher numbers in the face of falling school rolls".
However, official Scottish Government figures that were published last week reveal that there has been a drop in teacher numbers of more than 2,000. Ronnie Smith of the Educational Institute of Scotland was right to say that those figures represent an "emerging crisis" for Scottish education.
The truth is that, on indicator after indicator, the Government has been failing. When Fiona Hyslop was challenged about the Government's inability to cut class sizes, she continually pointed to improvements in the pupil to teacher ratio, but last week even that figure turned against her. The fall in teacher numbers means that the pupil to teacher ratio has increased. In 2008, it stood at 12.9 pupils per teacher, whereas it now stands at 13.2 pupils.
There is an issue with new teachers, too. In August, the Times Educational Supplement Scotland's probationer survey showed that only 477 of 3,153 probationers who were employed last session have secured permanent teaching posts. That amounts to around 15 per cent, which is a significant fall from 32 per cent since the first survey was undertaken in 2007. More and more newly qualified teachers are stuck at home watching Jeremy Kyle instead of teaching in our schools. The cabinet secretary needs to re-examine that crucial issue. He needs to give new direction to workforce planning, while fundamentally tackling the need for better alignment between national and local Government. We need him to take firm action without delay to avoid a deep and prolonged educational resources recession.
Yesterday, I and other MSPs addressed a lunch time meeting of the University and College Union. I have already taken the opportunity to discuss with the cabinet secretary some of the concerns that the union raised. Although I am sure that none of us believe that it is a good idea to train more teachers than we need or to guarantee a job for all, we are concerned that the Government's announcements of considerable reductions in the number of teacher training posts are having a huge impact on education departments such as at the Moray House school of education and Jordanhill. I ask the cabinet secretary urgently to consider the impact of a 70 per cent or greater reduction in the professional graduate diploma in education intake at Moray House. If we are at a stage where those courses are at risk, we might find that we are unable to maintain or increase capacity in the future, when the population is set to rise. We urge the cabinet secretary seriously to consider calls to stagger those substantial training place reductions to even out the impact on capacity and jobs.
We remain committed to the curriculum for excellence, but the teaching profession has real concerns about lack of clarity and information that need to be addressed rather than ignored. The best that can be said of the curriculum for excellence is that it is patchy throughout the country, and patchy in individual schools, particularly at secondary level.
Lindsay Paterson recently said that the current situation with regard to the curriculum for excellence was "confused" and "vague", and he added that it posed the real danger of turning schools "upside down". It is crystal clear that if the Government does not take action to rescue the situation, we will have a curriculum for mediocrity rather than a curriculum for excellence.
Those who are preparing young people for exams need the resources and training to be able to deliver the curriculum effectively, and—crucially—parents need to know what the changes to the curriculum and national qualifications will mean for their children. Most parents are totally oblivious to the monumental changes that are coming in Scottish education.
The Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association has described the vacuum of information that is leaving councils and headteachers struggling to fill the gaps. The vague information that was published about literacy and numeracy and about the new national qualifications during the summer is simply not good enough. Schools are waiting for detailed information and guidance so that pupils are prepared for the changes that are coming in 2014. Teachers are picking up the burden of the SNP's failure. That is not right, and it is not fair. We need strong and determined leadership from the cabinet secretary in that area.
Although we understand that the cabinet secretary has only just taken up his post, we urge him to return to Parliament in the early weeks of the new year to report in detail on the progress on the curriculum for excellence throughout the country. We are keen to work with the Government on that, but we will not support the implementation of a curriculum for excellence that is substandard and that fails Scotland's teachers and pupils. The Government must underpin the policy with the resources to deliver the necessary continuous professional development and teachers to make the curriculum work.
However, there is no point in having a curriculum for excellence that is fit for delivery if there are not enough teachers to deliver it.
The member must close.
The cabinet secretary must take the opportunity to re-examine the real priorities in education. The Government must accept that providing teachers and books is more important than providing free school meals for families who can afford to pay. The future of a generation is not something to be taken lightly. We will ensure that if the new cabinet secretary does not deliver, he is held accountable, and that if the SNP does not deliver, it is held accountable. We will deliver in opposition on our promises, as we did when we were in government. On our watch, failure will not go unnoticed or unpunished.
I move,
That the Parliament regrets that for the last two years the SNP government has presided over a series of failures on a range of education indicators, including teacher numbers and class sizes; believes that there are fundamental challenges that must be addressed in order to tackle the growing crisis in Scottish education, and therefore calls on the new Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning to take immediate action to rebuild the bond of trust between central and local government and establish a constructive working relationship with local authorities so that schools can deliver the best possible outcomes for Scottish education and young people, to bring fresh impetus to the implementation of the Curriculum for Excellence and the new national qualifications, providing teachers with the clarity, training and resources that they urgently require to implement the changes, and to focus on the key issue of teacher numbers, giving new teachers the career opportunities that they deserve and delivering effective workforce planning for the future.
I have had warmer welcomes, but I approach this task in the constructive and listening manner in which I approach all my tasks.
I pay tribute to my predecessor Fiona Hyslop, who has been a tremendous cabinet secretary. What the First Minister said was entirely true, but I will add something that members should remember. I take exception to only two things that have been said in the chamber. First, Tavish Scott said that he spoke for parents in Scotland. With respect, we all speak for parents in Scotland, and those who are best able to do so are those who have young children and are watching them growing up and working. If Tavish Scott speaks for parents, so did Fiona Hyslop, and she not only spoke for them but acted, worked and delivered for them.
Secondly, I note that there has been great admiration for my writing. I am tempted to issue my collected works. It would certainly make the job of David Maddox and political researchers easier if they had all my texts in one place. It would also make my life easier, as I would hear my words quoted in full, rather than partially. I was, for example, interested to hear the remarks that I allegedly wrote about COSLA. Those remarks were made in a column for the TESS—I enjoyed my time as a columnist for the TESS over three years—in the context of the closure of rural schools: a programme that was being pursued with some vigour, I am sad to say, by the previous Administration. I am glad, therefore, that my prescience and support led to the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill, which was passed unanimously in this chamber—I regard the campaign on that as a success.
We should now start from where we actually are, not from where people think we are. Since devolution, the Scottish Parliament has demonstrated its long and sustained commitment to Scottish education. The Parliament has a commitment and an ambition to retain our long-standing international reputation for excellence.
As we approach the second decade of this century, we know that our education system works well, but we all agree that we need it to be better if we are to compete with the best in the world. Today, as I speak, hundreds of thousands of children are being taught—and being taught well—by tens of thousands of teachers in thousands of schools throughout the country. Scottish education does its job well. Our job in the chamber is to support it and to help it to do better, and that is the task that I take on with my colleagues.
Will the minister take an intervention?
One moment please, I want to get going.
The minister has been going for three minutes.
Well, I intend to get going; members should not doubt that.
In 2003, the previous Administration launched its national debate on education, which was supported by all the political parties and the Education Committee. Ambitious ideas were developed and then introduced under curriculum for excellence. We shared an almost unprecedented consensus across Parliament that the principles and values of curriculum for excellence were and are right for our children and young people. They are right for Scotland and they meet our ambition.
What is our ambition? As I have said, it is to have a world-beating education service that draws together pre-schools, schools, colleges and universities, with a commitment to keep moving to achieve the highest standards for those who are within the system.
Of course, there is still work to do, and it is deeply irresponsible of politicians to make a crisis out of a problem. Using that language debases the work of all those thousands of professionals.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
No, not at the moment.
The evidence shows that this has been a year of successful achievement for pupils and their teachers. Together, they have delivered record exam results. Entries for highers and advanced highers rose by 3.2 per cent and 4.2 per cent respectively, despite falling school rolls. Pass rates at higher and advanced higher level are at a record high. Standard grade pass rates are at their highest since 2000. That is not a crisis.
If that is not a crisis, and things are so hunky-dory, why was the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning sacked from her post?
Things might not be hunky-dory, but we are not in a crisis.
Oh!
Well, as everyone keeps saying this morning, I like to use language accurately. We do not have a crisis in Scottish education; we have problems to solve. If Mike Rumbles would like to be part of the solution I welcome him, but if he is not part of the solution he is part of the problem.
I will give some more examples. Latest comparisons from the 2006-07 school year show that in Scotland, 69.8 per cent of pupils achieved the equivalent of a GCSE pass in English compared with 60.2 per cent in England, 57 per cent of Scottish pupils achieved a similar standard in a science subject compared with only 51.3 per cent in England, and 48.6 per cent of Scottish pupils achieved that standard in a modern language compared with only 30.9 per cent in England. We can and must keep improving, but we need to use the right language to describe where we are.
I entirely agree with the cabinet secretary that many schools and teachers are doing a fantastic job. How does he react to some of the criticisms of Scottish Qualifications Authority markers, who say that there is a real problem with some of those pass marks?
I want to address that and, of course, we will have debates and discussions. I was a member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee for four years during the first session of Parliament, and I always take such issues seriously. However, I want to ensure that we solve problems and do not just magnify them for political purposes. That is my aim.
It is quite clear that every sector has a crucial role to play in improving the learning of our children and young people. Preparing a young person for learning begins before they are born, which is why we must not forget the important roles that are played by health professionals, social workers and those who support parents to give our children the best start in life. I look forward to meeting those professionals. I will work closely with the Minister for Children and Early Years, who has done a fantastic job on implementing the early years framework, which we developed jointly with COSLA. We also have to embed the getting it right for every child approach—which we will have a chance to talk about this afternoon—in the work of every professional and practitioner who works with children and young people.
The provision of timely, proportionate and appropriate early intervention is the key principle of additional support for learning. The ASL legislation provides the framework for schools to deliver such support for children and young people.
How can the Government do all those things with 2,000 fewer teachers? Will the cabinet secretary address the issue of teacher numbers, which is the key issue of the debate?
Of course I will address the point, and I will do so in collaboration with local authorities. I have started that process. I make this point to Mr Brown, because he is a sophisticated thinker on these matters: we should ensure that we do not always lean on inputs; we must also look at outputs. I am happy to debate the issue with local authorities, in the chamber and elsewhere, and I will do so on the basis that we are delivering better and better education.
I will now address curriculum for excellence. We have heard a great deal of scaremongering this morning, and no doubt we are going to hear more, but I will listen to teachers in the classroom. Yesterday, I was in Inverkeithing, where I had a discussion with a range of teachers in their classrooms. Three of them said that curriculum for excellence is doing just what they want. It is making their job a job that they want to do.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
No.
I go back to what Larry Flanagan, the education convener of the EIS, said in September 2009:
"Curriculum for Excellence offers an opportunity to regain professional control of teaching and learning—a change, certainly, in contrast to the over-prescriptive practice of the last decade, and a challenge too, but not one that should overwhelm teachers."
It is right to ensure that professional people have the tools that they need for their job. It is right to encourage and help them to develop. Every good teacher I know—and I know many good teachers—wants the challenges of curriculum for excellence and they want to get it right.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
No. The member has made her point and I want to make mine.
That is why there is a management board of 17 members from the profession, four of whom are from the teacher unions. I will meet them shortly. No major decision on the progress of curriculum for excellence has been made without the recommendation of the management board members, and I will seek their views. In particular, I welcome the involvement of several representatives from the teaching unions, including School Leaders Scotland, in the management board's qualifications governing group, which will oversee development of the new qualifications, including the literacy and numeracy awards. For the first time since devolution, all teachers will be responsible for improving the literacy and numeracy of all children, and will support their success in gaining those awards.
Of course, I recognise that there are concerns. There must be time to prepare children for the new awards, and we must ensure that the new qualifications are robust and challenging and demonstrate our commitment to raising standards. I will discuss those concerns with the professionals, parents and pupils.
Let us just inject a fact into the scaremongering. I note that the first children who will be presented for the new qualifications are currently in primary 7. There is ample time, commitment and enthusiasm to develop the detail, engage extensively and get the proposals right before the first qualifications are received in 2013. I will not sign off on any proposals until I am satisfied that they will improve national standards and are workable. I will discuss with the profession at every stage. Significant resources are already being provided for curriculum for excellence. It is the future. We should be getting behind it and ensuring that it works rather than trying to undermine it in the way that I have heard it undermined this morning.
The cabinet secretary is accusing us of scaremongering, but in my speech I was careful to allude to the fact that it was the EIS, the SSTA and eminent people like Lindsay Paterson who have raised concerns. I was also very clear about the fact that we support curriculum for excellence, and we do not want it to fail.
Minister, I must ask you to close.
Then we are all on the same page, so let us ensure that we all work together to get it right. I look forward to that.
I will finish on the issue of class sizes. I am passionately committed to the question of class sizes, not because it is abstract but because it will make a difference. I am certain that we are making progress, and I will continue to drive it forward in partnership with others. That is what we need to do.
We need to have ambition, we need to focus and we need to ensure that we make achievements, but let us use the right language. Across the Parliament, across the sector and across Scotland, there is huge commitment and enthusiasm. We are delivering and we will go on delivering. Let us deliver education for Scotland in the way that the current Government has done and our predecessors did not.
I move amendment S3M-5334.2, to leave out from "regrets" to end and insert:
"recognises the progress of Scottish education under successive devolved administrations; further recognises the need to ensure effective delivery in every education sector in order to continue such progress; believes that the full and active participation of all stakeholders, particularly teachers, parents and pupils, and, of course, local authorities, is essential to achieving the best outcome including smaller class sizes, and agrees to continue to take such issues forward in pursuit of national educational excellence."
I welcome the new cabinet secretary to his position. From previous debates when I shadowed him on the environment, I know that we will have robust exchanges that reflect our political differences. However, I trust that, when we agree, we will be able to work constructively together in the interests of Scottish education across a wide and challenging portfolio.
In the four weeks since I became Labour's education spokesperson, I have met many people across the range of portfolio responsibilities. Although some of them might have been critical of various aspects of Scottish Government policy, almost all of them said that the previous cabinet secretary, Fiona Hyslop, had shown a willingness to listen and had made them feel that she was firmly on the side of the education sector. While she was in post, she demonstrated her personal commitment to taking education forward in Scotland. I wish her well in her new brief, and hope that the incoming minister will show a similar commitment.
A partisan approach to the debate would be to use the statistics that came out last Friday as a lever to give the SNP Government a good kicking. It is tempting to do that but, given that we have a new cabinet secretary in post, I have decided instead to spell out the things that he needs to put at the top of his in-tray. Labour's amendment highlights what we see as one of the most urgent tasks—retaining in the teaching profession the outstanding young teachers who are either unemployed or scrabbling around for temporary work.
I wonder whether Mr McNulty was here last week at First Minister's question time when, as I recall, his leader rubbished a plan for an early retirement scheme for Scotland's teachers. What is the difference between the scheme that Mr McNulty proposes and the one that the Government talked about?
If the member listens to what I have to say, I will make that clear.
I have a letter from a constituent of mine who is a post-probationary teacher in which she describes how her life has been put on hold while she seeks work and what impact that has had on her family. Many of her counterparts are unsure whether they will find a job here or be forced to look elsewhere or even leave the profession. In the current economic circumstances, uncertainty over unemployment is not unique to post-probationary teachers, but it cannot be in Scotland's interests to have so many well-trained teachers left without work when we know from the demographics of the profession that they will be needed soon. Currently, 24 per cent of the teacher workforce is aged 56 or over, which is a demographic time bomb that will explode in the none-too-distant future. If we lose a substantial proportion of current post-probationers and impose savage cuts on those who are being offered training places, we could end up with a crisis in education whose consequences would dwarf the problems that we face currently.
There is evidence that many teachers who are nearing the age of retirement would welcome the possibility of early release, given some pension protection. I strongly suspect that a significant number of older teachers are not yet ready for retirement and would welcome the possibility of handing over their full-time classroom responsibilities to a younger colleague, while using their experience and skills in a different way, possibly on a part-time basis. The current winding-down arrangements that were agreed as part of the McCrone deal are very rigid and were designed for different circumstances. Surely, through negotiations between employers, trade unions and the Government, those arrangements could be made more flexible in the interests of the profession and Scottish education.
The report of the literacy commission, which will be published tomorrow, will highlight strong evidence that targeted one-to-one support for pupils who have difficulty in gaining literacy and numeracy skills, as pioneered in West Dunbartonshire, and the nurture approach that is being practised in disadvantaged areas in Glasgow, provide huge benefits to the pupils and families who have to overcome the biggest barriers in accessing educational opportunities that most children and adults get as a matter of course. If we could draw on the expertise of older teachers to address pupils' needs where they are most pressing, while creating employment for young teachers, surely that would be a prize worth having. We know that we are not making progress on narrowing the attainment gap, which we all want to happen. Surely we should use the skills of the available teaching workforce to make an impact by reducing the opportunity gap while providing young teachers with the opportunity and security that they need to commit their future to Scottish education.
Last week, the Scottish Government suggested that local authorities could capitalise the costs of an early retirement scheme in the form of borrowing, a suggestion that COSLA found unacceptable. My suggestion is for a properly planned and resourced scheme that would be targeted particularly, although not exclusively, at authorities and areas with high concentrations of deprivation and where attainment levels are not as high as they are elsewhere. We need to do the best that we can for children in such areas. Any additional resources that come from the Scottish Government would be used to put teachers' skills to use where they are most needed. Surely we can all support that. There would need to be guarantees that those who are retiring or winding down would be replaced by new teachers.
I am sure that the Scottish Government will want to talk to COSLA about how existing resources are used, anyway. For that reason, I cannot be specific at this point about how much extra resource might be needed to produce a viable and effective scheme. There might well be actuarial benefits in replacing older teachers with newly qualified ones who have 40 years of contributions to the teachers pension scheme ahead of them. However, I am clear that we need to do something to prevent new teachers from drifting away, to apply the skills of the existing workforce in the most effective way and to raise attainment standards where they are falling furthest behind.
The cabinet secretary will want to make progress on class sizes and we share that aspiration. Indeed, nearly all the progress that has been made on class sizes in the past 10 years was made under Labour ministers. However, class sizes should not be the only touchstone against which success or failure is judged. The work of John McLaren has been rightly criticised by some experts over the way in which it made comparisons between the Scottish and other systems, but it is a wake-up call that the superiority of Scottish education over that south of the border or elsewhere in Europe can no longer be assumed. The transition to the curriculum for excellence must be properly managed. The concerns that have been voiced by the ex-president of School Leaders Scotland cannot be swept aside. In particular, from the point of view of secondary teachers, there has been a lack of clarity about what is expected of them in implementing the curriculum for excellence and there are concerns about whether the scheme of assessment, which is due for introduction in 2010, will be ready on time.
Will the cabinet secretary match the minimum funding guarantee that the Labour Government at Westminster has put in place, which has been set at 2.1 per cent for the next financial year and which will protect schools south of the border from the kind of budget proposals that local authorities the length and breadth of Scotland are considering?
There are many other items that I would like to place in the top tier of the cabinet secretary's in-tray. I have not had time to speak about higher education, pre-fives provision or child protection arrangements. I have left out the concerns of the colleges and said nothing about school buildings or kinship care. However, I have set out a serious proposal for consideration and highlighted briefly the most urgent tasks that the cabinet secretary faces. I hope that my approach will be matched by an equally constructive response.
I move amendment S3M-5334.1, to insert at end:
", and calls on the Scottish Government to introduce a properly planned and resourced scheme for early retirement and more flexible winding down arrangements for older teachers, linked to guarantees that teachers released from the classroom will be replaced by post-probationary teachers."
For the second time this morning, I welcome Michael Russell to his new position as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning. As has been said, Mr Russell is well known for his combative style and it will be interesting to see how that develops as he tries to make progress with education policy on what we hope will be a consensual basis, although I must say that the signs so far are not encouraging. He is of course no longer employed in his previous task of steering through the national conversation and the SNP's plans for a referendum, but perhaps, without his cybernat employee blogging abuse all the hours in the day at taxpayers' expense, he was deemed to be no longer properly supported to perform that role.
I will say a few words again about the outgoing cabinet secretary, Fiona Hyslop. It is fair to say that Fiona did not have the happiest time as education secretary, although she did some good work. In particular, I pay tribute to her for introducing legislation to help to protect rural schools, an issue in which I had a close interest. As Margaret Smith said, the failures in education policy were not the failures of the cabinet secretary alone but those of the entire Government. The concordat that was negotiated by Fiona Hyslop's Cabinet colleagues left her without the tools to deliver the wholly unrealistic SNP manifesto pledges. However, we have a new minister and surely it is time for a fresh start. Scotland needs not so much a change of face at the top of education but a change of direction.
The Lib Dem motion details some of the well-known failures in education policy. We know that the policy on class size reductions is unachievable. We have calculated that, on current terms, it will be 2095 before it is delivered. We know that the SNP has been falling down on delivering new school buildings and that the Scottish Futures Trust has yet to fund a single project. We know that teacher numbers are falling, despite the SNP promise to maintain them. More worrying still, we know that, despite substantial increased investment in education in recent years, standards have been flatlining. That point is acknowledged by education experts. We are slipping down the international comparison tables and it is now clear that school education in England is consistently out-performing that in Scotland. The current situation cannot be allowed to go on.
Murdo Fraser's amendment refers to the Swedish model of education, which advocates a voucher scheme. Are the Conservatives in favour of education vouchers and is that what Parliament would be supporting if we supported the amendment?
I was just about to cover the very point that Mr Rumbles discusses. He will notice that our amendment highlights some of the fresh thinking that we have heard from the new cabinet secretary in the past. We are interested in exploring some of those ideas further with the cabinet secretary. That does not necessarily mean that we are as yet convinced by some of them, but we are open to persuasion.
We need fresh thinking as well as a fresh face. In that context, the appointment of Michael Russell augurs well, given all that he has written in the past about education. I was very interested to see that, in the tour de force that is the now famous—or notorious—book "Grasping the Thistle", which he co-authored with Dennis MacLeod, Mr Russell was prepared to embrace radical new thinking on education. Let me quote just a few extracts:
"we want to rethink the prevailing Scottish orthodoxy, which continues to hold that health and education – and other services – must all be delivered virtually exclusively by the public sector … Many commentators have noted the success in Sweden of education vouchers, and the debate about their utility in Scotland would be instructive, particularly if shorn of ideological prejudice.
The consumer – the child along with his or her parents, the young person seeking to go to college or university and the mature student – would be able to choose the best facilities for their particular needs, and be able to force new provision onto the market by means of their purchasing power, provided by the state."
My particular favourite is:
"Choice and diversity are the hallmarks of a mature and confident society and such a system would ensure the emergence of new types of private provision, which are not seen as exclusive or class ridden."
Those words are music to my ears and those of my Conservative colleagues.
Will the member give way?
No. I want to develop the point. If I have time later, I will give way.
For some time, we have been interested in the Swedish style of education provision, which allows parents and other providers to set up their own schools. On this side of the chamber, we have always felt that there is a lot to be learned from the small, northern European countries such as Sweden that are part of the fabled arc of prosperity. I am delighted that the SNP now takes a similar view. Of course, the result in Sweden has been to drive up standards not only in the independent sector but in the state sector. Perhaps that is the recipe that Scotland requires.
I raised my eyebrows on reading that the provision could be provided privately, which I assume means by profit-making bodies. Until now, the Scottish Conservatives have believed that there is an argument for allowing new schools to be created by groups of parents, charities and churches and other faith groups, but even we had not accepted that such institutions could be run by private bodies, for profit. We may be sceptical on the matter, but I say to the cabinet secretary that we are open to his persuasive charm on the issue. Let him come and sell us the idea of private provision of education in Scotland, funded by the taxpayer but run for profit by the private sector, and we will not let our ideological prejudices get in the way of a mature and constructive discussion.
Will the member give way?
I would be delighted to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say.
The member read the extracts accurately, because I was asking for a debate, not advocating an idea. Given that we all want to be shorn of ideological prejudice, will he abandon the ideological prejudice against another thing that makes Sweden so successful: independence? If he will do that, we are moving forward.
I am deeply disappointed that so early in his tenure of office—less than an hour after being appointed as cabinet secretary—
He caught you out.
If only he did, Mr Paterson.
The cabinet secretary is already being whipped firmly into line by his new colleagues. Obviously, the First Minister had a firm word with Mr Russell before his appointment. The First Minister must have said, "Renounce all your past beliefs." Mr Russell is like a latter-day Archbishop Cranmer, being dragged to the stake, renouncing all his past conversions. I am deeply unhappy that the cabinet secretary has taken the stance that he has this morning.
Will the member give way?
No, the member is winding up.
Given that our amendment uses the cabinet secretary's words, I am sure that he will have no problem in voting for it. I reiterate the call, which we have made in the past and which has been supported by the whole Parliament, for primary school testing. My colleague Elizabeth Smith will say more about that later in the debate.
The one thing that is clear about Scottish education is that we cannot go on as we are. The appointment of a new minister gives us an opportunity to make a fresh start. We cannot have another two and a half years like the period that has just gone by, in which no progress is made on standards and there are failures in a whole range of policy areas.
I move amendment S3M-5334.3 to leave out from "regrets" and insert:
"welcomes the appointment of Michael Russell to the post of Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning; believes, like the Cabinet Secretary, that ‘choice and diversity are the hallmarks of a mature and confident society' in the provision of state-funded education and that Scotland can learn from successful models in other European countries such as Sweden; trusts that such creative thinking will not be stifled by the Cabinet Secretary's promotion to higher Ministerial Office, and calls upon him to implement the terms of motion S3M-3164 as passed unanimously by the Parliament on 7 January 2009 affirming the need to ensure that pupils in Scotland are properly schooled and tested in the basic skills of literacy and numeracy by the end of primary 7."
We move to the open debate. The opening speakers have used up most of the spare time that was available to us, so members will have to stick to six minutes.
"Dithering, drifting – whatever you call it - the lack of focus"
from the Government
"is probably going to damage the education of thousands of children".
It continues to show
"a poverty of ambition for Scotland's children."
That is how Councillor Bhatia, the executive member for education on Scottish Borders Council, sums up her feelings, which are mirrored in local authorities across the country, on how education is faring on the SNP's watch.
Sadly, the Government's latest solution seems to be to wrest still more control away from councils. Far from coming as a surprise, the threats of the past week to
"nationalise every school in Scotland"
represent just one more example of the SNP's power grab.
We have seen it all before. The SNP's vision of localism is to turn local government into some kind of puppet theatre, in which local authorities are reduced to doing central Government's bidding but kept as a buffer to take the flak when it all goes wrong. We have seen it with the SNP's idea for a new taxation system—a local income tax in which rates are set nationally—and, all too obviously, we have seen it in the historic concordat that it pushed on local councils when it came into office. The Government says that the concordat is based on "mutual respect and partnership", but that is only as long as councils do what they are told. It is a partnership that restricts councils' control over their budgets and decision making yet imposes unworkable, unfeasible and unwanted demands over their spending decisions.
I do not recognise that description of the concordat. Does the member think that Liberal Democrat councils and councils in which Liberal Democrats are jointly in power would recognise it, given their willing signing up to the concordat and their great partnership in it?
Indeed. The SNP's default position is always to bluster and blame. A little mature reflection might benefit its members today.
One cannot deny that the SNP has developed a clear strategy. As Margaret Smith said, it is to centralise the power, localise the blame. No doubt it is an attractive strategy for the man who is sat comfortably in Bute house. However, as the past week or so has shown, the strategy cannot last. It is a strategy that will inevitably cause unrest, resentment and downright rebellion among local authorities. Councils will neither accept unreasonable demands within unmanageable constraints nor be bullied, blamed and belittled. Even the most loyal SNP councillors will begin to revolt. They have begun to see that the Government does not have—indeed has never had—the "unprecedented respect" for local government that it claims to have.
Of course, most headlines this week focused on the failures of Fiona Hyslop, but we should all be clear: the SNP's failures on education will not stop just because Mike Russell has taken charge. Everything will not suddenly become rosy just because we have a new cabinet secretary. Things will get better only if Mike Russell commits to overseeing a fundamental change not only in Government policy but in Government attitude.
The relationship between local authorities and central Government has to be rebuilt. The SNP has to regain councils' trust. It also has to begin to demonstrate the respect that it claims to have and look again at the demands that it is making on local authorities in terms of education. It has to appreciate that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution and that headline-grabbing promises do not necessarily equate to practical policy commitments.
Over the past few days, I have spoken to a number of councils about their current situation. The overriding message is clear: councils do not have enough money to meet the SNP's pledges and, even if they did, the money could be better spent on other things.
Will the member give way?
No. I would like to make progress.
The Government's white elephant pledge on free school meals for all primary 1 to primary 3 children is a classic example of the issue. Instead of investing in areas where a real difference could be made, it prefers to direct councils to spend some of their already overstretched budget on buying lunches for rich kids. "Warped priorities" is one councillor's succinct description of the policy. In any case, there simply is not enough funding to meet the target. One council warned me that not only is it unable to allocate enough money to deliver the meals but the rest of the schools budget may face future cuts due to tightening finances if it has to maintain the funding that it has allocated.
On class sizes, the Government needs to quickly rethink its attitude. How can it have the gall to criticise local authorities for not making progress towards delivering smaller class sizes in primary schools, when it knows full well that the money is simply not available to do so? One councillor explained the situation in their local authority to me very simply:
"If the government doesn't provide increased funding, then reducing class sizes to 18 is simply impossible. And if the government does provide the extra money that's needed, there is no physical school space available, and no prospect of meeting the target within the Government's stated timeframe of this Parliament."
The scale of the task that the Government is demanding is easy to overlook. One of our smaller councils has calculated that, if it were to reduce all P1 to P3 classes to 18 and provide all the pupils with a free school lunch, the cost would be equivalent to 1 per cent of its total budget for this year. That is before it counts in the cost of improvements to kitchen facilities or expansion of school buildings, both of which would be needed. Things are even more startling when one looks at a large, chronically underfunded authority such as Aberdeen City Council, where the cost of meeting the targets is more like 9 per cent of its annual budget. Clearly, that money could be better spent elsewhere.
The nub of the problem is this: while the Government has spent its time arguing with local authorities, it has forgotten about what is important in education. It has let the curriculum for excellence stall—it has failed to provide the necessary funding and has still not clarified how the curriculum is to be reflected in examinations. Local authorities want to be able to fund the best possible education for their children, but they are not getting the support, funding or freedom that they need from Government.
I truly hope that those developments can be reversed and that the arrival of a new cabinet secretary will herald a change in the Government's education policy. I hope that today the cabinet secretary will commit himself to rebuilding the relationship with local authorities, and to working with them, in a genuine partnership, to correct the problems of the past two years, to review what the real priorities for education in Scotland ought to be and to establish how best to meet them.
I am sorry, but there is insufficient time to allow members to go beyond their time limit.
In the past 10 days, I have visited Arran high school, Dykesmains primary school and Garnock academy in my constituency, where there are no signs of the chaos and crisis that the Opposition has talked about so melodramatically in recent weeks. What I saw on my visits were dedicated teachers and committed pupils.
Margaret Smith talked about the reduction in the number of teachers in employment, but there are a number of reasons for that. First, due to Labour's recession, from which the United Kingdom is the only OECD country still to emerge, the number of teachers taking early retirement has fallen sharply. That means that fewer places are available for young teachers when they finish their probationary year. I assume that no one would sensibly argue that the Government has powers on taxation and borrowing that would allow us to recover from the recession more quickly, as we would wish to do.
Secondly, as I am sure both Lib Dem and Labour members are fully aware, required teacher numbers must be planned for at least four years in advance for PGDE students and seven years in advance for BEd students. For example, if the Government assessed that it needed a certain number of teachers by 2016, recruitment interviews for those teachers would begin in 2010, training would begin in 2011 and the probationary year would end in 2013. Another three years should be added for BEd teachers. That means that many of the teachers who cannot currently find full-time employment were recruited at the behest of the Liberal-Labour Government, in the years before the SNP came to power. I ask Des McNulty, who has left the chamber, and Margaret Smith to admit that their parties have got their sums wrong. The proportion of probationary teachers in full-time employment fell from 64 per cent in 2004 to 40 per cent before the SNP took over.
I am intrigued by the member's arithmetical calculations. I hope that he will accept that the previous Executive produced 53,000 teachers. The objective of the current Government was to hold on to those. What has happened to the 2,000 posts that have been lost? How is that fall explained by an increase in the number of teachers who are still in post because they have not retired?
The Liberal Democrats have some cheek to talk about teacher numbers. Imagine if the £800 million cut that they suggested be imposed last February had been implemented—what impact would that have had on local government, services and teacher numbers? Because of the rank opportunism of the Liberal Democrats in this area, as in so many others, in the recent Glasgow North East by-election they were defeated by Solidarity and outpolled by more than 2:1 by the British National Party. The party is clearly marginalised and is going nowhere.
Between 1997 and the present day, the UK Labour Government has appointed no fewer than eight education ministers. During its years in power, the Labour Party in Scotland appointed five education ministers, one of whom lasted less than six months. Considering that that rapid transition was during the period 2003-04, would it be fair to say that it was the reason for the rather spectacular miscalculation of teacher numbers that I have mentioned?
Perhaps the Labour Party has forgotten about its rather shameful management of Scotland's education system in previous years. I recall members in the first session of Parliament calling for the resignation of the Labour Minister for Children and Education over the shambolic SQA scandal, in which thousands of Scottish students' exam papers were lost or left unmarked. When the current Government took over in 2007, the Labour Party left 260,000 pupils in schools in poor or bad condition. Instead of attacking the Government, perhaps the Opposition should heap praise on it for removing 100,000 pupils from such schools.
Mr McLetchie touched on the early retirement package that the Scottish Government has announced. Des McNulty's change of heart on the issue is remarkable. On 26 November, he said:
"The SNP Government needs to put new money in for more teachers jobs to get new teachers into work. Experienced teachers play an important role in our schools, not least as mentors for those entering the profession. The scheme will take experienced teachers out of the classroom."
We can see clearly that there has been a U-turn on the issue within a few days.
Will the member give way?
I would like to take an intervention from Ken Macintosh, but I cannot, as I have a long way to go. I apologise for that.
Despite the Opposition's narrow and unfounded criticisms of the Scottish Government, it has neglected to mention the many successes, such as the introduction of free school meals. The Liberals did not vote against that measure, but they have castigated it opportunistically again today.
No.
I am pretty sure that you abstained on the measure in committee.
No.
All right, so Liberal Democrat members do not think that poor and young kids should get free school meals.
We have also abolished the graduate endowment. The Tories promised to do that for almost a decade, before turning turtle and opposing the legislation.
You have a long way to go.
Not as long as you have in order to raise your vote above 2 per cent.
Order. Members should use full names.
The only reason why the Liberal Democrats were fifth in my constituency in the previous Scottish Parliament election was that there were not six candidates.
We have provided £30 million extra for university and college students and a £1.25 billion programme of central funding to rebuild or refurbish schools. We have increased the proportion of young people entering further or higher education from 56 to 62 per cent. With reference to higher education spending, which has increased from 3.73 to 3.87 per cent of the budget—by £50 million a year—under this Government, Professor Anthony Cohen, former principal of Queen Margaret University, stated on "Newsnight" on 10 September:
"This Government has I think manifested an extraordinary commitment to the universities since they came to power. The taskforce itself was the closest engagement which any Government in my recollection has had with the universities".
The Scottish Government has an excellent record on education, and the Scottish education system is something of which we should all be rightly proud. Perhaps in the future I should take a closer look at what the Liberal Democrats are saying on some aspects of education. However, I find it difficult to do so, as they are a sore element in Scottish politics.
I want to make two central policy points and to analyse some of what has happened recently. I will focus my remarks on teacher numbers and the local delivery of education.
I feel personally the effects of the collapse in teacher numbers that has taken place. In 2003, I was given responsibility, as the Minister for Education and Young People, for growing teacher numbers, which was not an easy task. I was assisted in that process by Euan Robson and Robert Brown. The then Administration had a clear purpose in trying to grow teacher numbers. With the phenomenon of falling school rolls ahead of us, if we could successfully grow teacher numbers and hold them steady at 53,000, an historic opportunity would open up to cut class sizes, to wrap other resources around kids in need and to give headteachers flexibility to deploy staffing in a way that we had never seen before. I regret that that opportunity appears to have been squandered.
Because we were successful in growing teacher numbers, which was not easy, the collapse that has taken place represents a spectacular failure in public policy. I want to look at why that has happened. In only two short years, the progress of the previous four years has been virtually wiped out.
Fiona Hyslop could have done many things better, but the whole blame cannot be laid at her door. In my view, the principal cause of what has happened is the massive policy error that the SNP made when it became the Administration. It is an error of the whole Government, but Alex Salmond and John Swinney, who masterminded much of what has happened, had a major part to play. The problem is rooted in the Government's approach to the concordat. It was a fundamental error for the Government to invest everything in the concordat, putting all of its eggs in one delivery basket.
I remember well the announcement of the concordat and being told how it would give rise to a new generation of splendid relationships with local government in perpetuity. I turned to the person sitting next to me and said that the arrangement would not last—and so it has turned out. Why has that happened? When the concordat was announced, I knew that delivering national priorities would be difficult. There is a genuine problem for all Governments across the world—not just the SNP Government, the Government of which I was part or the UK Government. Where a Government does not control the means of delivery of its policies from the centre, it has challenges to overcome.
I remember well that, when driving up teacher numbers, I had the complete support of education professionals, directors of education and conveners of education committees. I was bound to have that support, as my colleagues and I were putting money into their service. However, I knew that many council leaders did not share our view of education as a priority—that was just a fact. I got a lot of feedback suggesting that education had done well under the Scottish Administration at the time, and under the Labour Government since 1997, and that it was time for other services to get more cash. That was the view and the belief that was emerging. It was suggested, understandably, that it was time for roads and transport, for street lighting, or for parks and recreation. However, that revealed a massive misunderstanding of what the then Executive was about. It was a national priority for us to improve teacher numbers as the basis for future national success, and we were not going to be thwarted in that endeavour.
Will the member take an intervention?
With respect to Keith Brown, I have very little time to develop the points that I wish to make.
Council leaders did not like the financial mechanisms that we put in place to ensure that the cash got to the schools. What would the point have been if I had gone to Cabinet and secured extra money from among colleagues to put into the education budget at the top, if, underneath, money was being shuffled out into other services? There would have been no point in that at all.
If council leaders did not share my priority—they were perfectly entitled not to share it, being elected on a different basis from those of us who serve at the national level—what would the chances be of my delivering the teacher number targets? Without the financial levers and devices to do it, there would be no or very little chance indeed. That was the classic error that the SNP made on coming into Government. It gave away all the levers. Those levers existed for a reason, and they exist in government in most of Europe and the western world.
Will the member give way?
I beg your pardon, but I want to continue and I am running out of time.
That is the root cause of the problem. If the Government has national commitments but no means of ensuring their delivery, it should not expect to deliver them. Changing ministers will not change that situation. A change in policy is seemingly being considered, potentially taking education away from councils, but there is no reason to believe that the civil service will deliver education any better than councils.
I would have little hesitation in changing the methods of local delivery. There are significantly too many education authorities. I would reduce their number and widen the span of command of the best dozen or so really talented local education leaders. I would focus on devolving more powers to headteachers and on the exercise of real discretion where possible. I believe that a case can be made for the 100 per cent funding of core education functions by central Government. Incidentally, that would bring huge council tax benefits in its wake. That is still possible with local decision making by councillors and, potentially, through councillors working in partnership with others.
Until the Government recovers some of the levers that it requires in order to deliver, the fundamental problems will continue and Mike Russell will not be able to reverse them. Will tensions between local and central Government be created? Yes, almost inevitably. That is not always a bad or wrong thing, but it is something that we must come to terms with. There are international lessons that tell us that Governments require national levers to deliver national priorities.
That was a very thoughtful speech—I wish that I had more time to focus on some of the points that Peter Peacock made.
The motion refers to the new Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Mike Russell. I congratulate the minister on his appointment and I wish him well. It is important to pay tribute to the achievements of his predecessor, Fiona Hyslop, as other members have already done. During Fiona's time in office, the principle of free education was re-established by abolishing the graduate endowment tuition fee. She delivered the introduction of grants in further education and the extension of higher education to young asylum seekers. We have witnessed the delivery of free and nutritious school meals to children in primaries 1, 2 and 3—and I am worried by the comments from Liberal Democrats about attempts to wreck that. There has also been progress in providing cash for kinship carers, which the previous Executive fundamentally failed to provide. I will not attempt to gloss over the challenges on teacher numbers and class sizes—I will come to those issues. I am sure, however, that politicians of all parties are mature enough to acknowledge Fiona Hyslop's achievements, of which there are many. On a personal level, I thank her for the opportunity to be one of her parliamentary liaison officers.
Despite those achievements, the motion refers to
"the growing crisis in Scottish education".
I am disappointed that the Liberal Democrats used those words, which I find ill considered and inappropriate. I hope that they will reflect on the use of such words, through which the Liberal Democrats undermine confidence in our education system and ignore the excellent work and commitment of pupils and teachers in schools across Scotland.
Will the member give way?
I apologise, but I do not have time.
I do not believe that that was the Liberal Democrats' intention, but that is what the motion does. Class sizes are at an all-time low, and that has been achieved under an SNP Government.
I will point out the flawed logic of the Liberal Democrat argument as gently as possible with this question: if there is a growing crisis in Scottish education under this Government, how serious was the crisis before May 2007, when Labour and the Liberal Democrats were in power and when class sizes were bigger? Wow—that must have been some crisis indeed. The answer is that there was no crisis in education before May 2007. Of course there was not a crisis, but—
Will the member take an intervention?
I apologise, but I want to fit in all my content.
There is certainly no crisis now. In trying to score a party-political point the Liberal Democrats have overplayed their hand, and they are wrongly and needlessly damaging the reputation of our education system. As I said, I do not think that that was the intention behind their motion, but that is its result.
The motion mentions a need
"to rebuild the bond of trust between central and local government".
I am not sure what that kind of language is trying to achieve. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats think that Mike Russell and COSLA's Pat Watters should take a blood brothers' pledge to rebuild that bond of trust. I can see it now: Mike Russell could be Huckleberry Finn to Pat Watters's Tom Sawyer in some Boy's Own adventure. I make light of the situation for a very good reason. By talking about rebuilding a bond of trust, the Liberal Democrats overegg their argument. To suggest that local authorities, which have all agreed to freeze the council tax for two consecutive years, do not have a working relationship—sorry, a "bond of trust"—with the Scottish Government is clearly nonsense.
It is unfair for councils to be lumped together in such a way. Is the bond of trust broken in East Lothian or Perth, where more teachers are being employed? How about the 19 local authorities where primary school class sizes fell over the past year? Is the bond of trust shattered in East Ayrshire, where there has been a 33.7 per cent increase in the number of P1 to P3 classes of 18 and under over the past year? Of course not. There are 32 local authorities, each of which has its own relationship with the Scottish Government. Opposition parties should be promoting those relationships, not trying to undermine them.
The Scottish Government hoped that teacher numbers could be maintained in the face of falling school rolls. It has been challenging to work in partnership with local authorities to achieve that. The figures are clear, as are the challenges, and no one is trying to run away from that. Several local authorities could have and should have done better. That is a genuine frustration. However, tabloid headline-grabbing phrases like "education in crisis" and "rebuilding bonds of trust" are just that: they might deliver newspaper headlines, but they do not deliver any form of constructive opposition. I say again: I do not believe that the Liberal Democrats want to use education as a political football. There is a genuine opportunity to engage with the Scottish Government, but the Liberal Democrats' motion has missed it. They could have provided constructive opposition, but they have chosen not to. I hope that they will reflect on that, as there is a way forward together if they choose, dare I say it, to grasp the thistle.
We have a new education minister, and there are challenges ahead. It would be more appropriate if Opposition parties were positive and constructive. We have to bear responsibilities, as a Scottish Government, and those responsibilities are clear. We must also better match the additional rights that have been extended to councils with their responsibilities better to fulfil their obligations. I wish our new cabinet secretary all the best in that challenging task.
I begin by congratulating Mike Russell on his promotion. The new cabinet secretary faces a great challenge to deliver an education system that meets the needs and aspirations of our children and young people, not forgetting adult learners. I look forward to Mr Russell's regular attendance at the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, and I am confident that he shares the same sense of anticipation.
I wish neither to gloat about nor pay false praise to Mr Russell's predecessor. The truth is that Fiona Hyslop faced the almost impossible challenge of delivering a range of ill-thought-out policies in a context where many of the levers that were needed to achieve them had been given away. That is without even mentioning issues to do with poorly considered Government spending priorities. In the face of all that, Fiona Hyslop always faced an uphill struggle. The bad news for Mr Russell is that those problems persist and the failure of the Government to deliver on education is less and less tolerated each day by Scottish teachers, pupils and parents.
The amendment in the name of Michael Russell seems to be jarringly at odds with the comments about local government that Fiona Hyslop made last Friday. The Government's carefully crafted partnership with local government is unravelling by the day and by the hour. Not just Labour-controlled councils but all councils are concerned. That will be a problem for the new cabinet secretary. However, it is important that we work together, where possible, to achieve what we all want: a significantly improved Scottish education system. Where possible, I will work with the Government to advance that cause.
The achievement of real and lasting improvements for Scottish children and young people must be at the heart of what we do. We cannot afford to let meaningless ideological objections to a particular funding policy stand in the way of improving our school estate. The failure to deliver on its pledge to match, brick for brick, the new school building levels of the previous Administration is possibly the greatest single failure of the SNP Government. The Government's attempts to claim schools that were built by the previous Administration have been bought by no one outside the SNP.
In my constituency, the previous Administration provided additional funding for seven new primary schools and one new high school. More than 20 new schools were built throughout North Lanarkshire. What does the current Government offer to progress, brick for brick, for my constituents? One new high school in North Lanarkshire and perhaps a new primary school at some point in the future—maybe, perhaps, let us wait and see.
Let us be clear. This is not about scoring political points over the SNP, although it is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid doing so; this is about a failed school building programme, which is resulting in a two-tier education system, in which some lucky pupils are taught in modern, 21st century school buildings that enhance the community, while other pupils are abandoned by the Government to be taught in substandard accommodation. Why? So that the Scottish Government does not have to concede that its SFT has delivered nothing.
I ask the cabinet secretary to be bold and to step up to the challenge right here and right now. Will he abandon the SFT and use whatever means he can, including public-private partnerships, to begin a new school building programme that will benefit pupils and communities and provide much-needed work for our beleaguered construction industry?
It is unfortunate that the SNP report card on teacher numbers is also marked with a D-minus. As we heard, teacher numbers have fallen by 2,000 during the past two years, which is having a devastating effect on newly graduated teachers, who entered the profession on the understanding that there would be jobs for them after their probationary year.
It is not good enough for the Government to blame councils for misusing funding that it claims has been provided. The funding arrangements for Scottish councils were devised by the Government. If the arrangements are not enabling the Government to deliver on its policies, that is because one policy—the hysterical concordat—is beginning to turn to dust before SNP members' eyes. I would have thought that Mike Russell looks a little more like Worzel Gummidge, with Councillor Isabel Hutton, COSLA's education convener, as his Aunt Sally.
I am not making a cheap debating point; I am talking about real teachers, who are losing out on real jobs, and about real pupils, who are not benefiting from better teacher pupil ratios. The Government's failure to increase teacher numbers has left in tatters its manifesto pledge to reduce class sizes to 18.
The SNP remains determined to provide free school meals to all primary 1 to P3 children. I think that the money would be better used on universal breakfast club provision in Scotland, although I was struck by the much simpler request of a parent who wrote in the Times Educational Supplement Scotland the other week that she wanted her SNP-controlled council to provide her child with a jotter to write in. She would be happy to provide the lunch herself—
I am sorry. Your time is up.
I congratulate Michael Russell on his appointment as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and I was genuinely pleased to be able to vote for him this morning. It is well known that Mr Russell comes to his new post with interesting baggage. He was an education spokesman when the SNP was in opposition and he was a writer during his wilderness years, when our Parliament was much the poorer for his absence.
And mine.
How correct. I will include Mr Gibson too. We are richer for his presence.
As shadow education spokesman, a confident Mr Russell told the SNP conference in September 2002:
"The SNP will introduce class sizes of 18 or below in the first three years of Primary, starting first in the areas of worst deprivation but with the aim of completing the programme within five years."
Five years, indeed. When it came to the 2007 SNP manifesto, it seems that no one bothered to revise the script, and poor Fiona Hyslop was landed with one of the most ludicrous and unaffordable policies of all time. The policy was rolled out at a glacial pace and, far from taking five years to achieve, was on schedule to be achieved in 2094, just in time for my great-great-great-grandchildren to start school.
There is nothing like a sinner who repents. Sure enough, during his period of reflection Mr Russell articulated a vision of education and society that was much more in tune with my own, in which choice and diversity were celebrated, a centralised, monolithic system was rejected and models in countries such as Sweden were praised as exemplars. The question for the SNP Government on education policy, now and in the months ahead, is whether it will grasp the thistle or gag Mike Russell.
It is ironic that the Government that trumpeted its new relationship with Scotland's councils in its historic concordat declared war on the same councils only last week because of their alleged failures to meet their commitments on teacher numbers and class sizes. If we study the terms of the concordat—that discredited and deceitful document—we learn that it is true that councils acknowledged that
"specific arrangements for local authorities to maintain teacher numbers in the face of falling school rolls"
were in place. Therefore, Fiona Hyslop had a point, but only up to a point, because the policy was unaffordable at the best of times, never mind in the teeth of Labour's recession and against a backcloth of financial retrenchment. With school rolls falling, it made no sense for councils to sustain teacher numbers as a priority, given all the other competing demands on council budgets, such as care for our older and most vulnerable people. Peter Peacock made an excellent speech on the choices that councils face.
The nationally dictated class size reduction policy is dead in the water. Its original architect is Michael Russell, not Fiona Hyslop, and he should acknowledge that and start again, with a programme that is focused on raising standards, improving discipline and expanding the choice and diversity that he professes to admire.
If the cabinet secretary really wants to help councils that are grappling with their education budgets for next year, he should release councils from the equally absurd commitment in the historic concordat to provide free school meals for all children in P1, P2 and P3, including the children of parents who can well afford to feed their children and have no need of or desire for a state subsidy. Margaret Smith and Alison McInnes were quite right to make that point—as was Karen Whitefield, although if the Labour Party had had the guts to vote the policy down we would not have been landed with this mess in the first place. We should also remember that at a meeting of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, the Minister for Children and Early Years, Adam Ingram, acknowledged that the policy would cost councils £30 million a year. I remind the cabinet secretary that, for £30 million, our councils could employ well over 1,000 teachers and make up the shortfall about which his predecessor complained.
For the SNP Government, there is a clear choice to be made on education policy. Does it continue to follow the Stalinist, centralist model that was advocated by Fiona Hyslop and enshrined in the concordat, under which councils are simply the delivery agents of a nationally dictated programme? Or does it instead look forward to a devo-max education policy—a Scottish education system in which councils do not have a monopoly on the provision of state-funded education and we can consider establishing community school trusts and funding independent providers to enhance diversity in the provision of Gaelic-medium education or Steiner education or to promote Montessori schools, all of which struggle for support or are ignored under the current system?
Until this week, a complacent SNP Government refused to recognise the weaknesses in our education system, which were nowhere better exemplified than in last week's exchanges between the First Minister and my colleague Annabel Goldie, in which Mr Salmond dismissed and trashed the evidence of respected experts in the field on falling standards. That attitude can prevail no longer. This week's events have been a wake-up call to the SNP Government and provide an opportunity for a fresh start that we must seize—or even grasp. I hope that the cabinet secretary will do that.
I welcome Michael Russell to his role and wish him well in it. The SNP Government and Fiona Hyslop have a record to be proud of on education. It is a record of achievement and care for Scottish education that far outshines anything that went before under devolution.
Labour's first stab was Sam Galbraith, who ran the examination system into the ground with the SQA farce, thereby doing massive damage to Scotland's education system. Thousands of pupils got the wrong exam results, there was distress for all involved, there were logjams in university applications and, as a result, there was general chaos.
Then Jack McConnell took over at education but with Europe and external relations added to the portfolio. Wendy Alexander took over lifelong learning from Henry McLeish, but it was lumped with transport and enterprise. It was like a bad episode of a bad soap opera, in which Scottish education was treated with contempt.
When Cathy Jamieson took over at education and the external relations bit was stripped out of the portfolio, there was at least a minister trying hard—if not successfully—to improve the education system, but she still did not have responsibility for tertiary education. After Wendy Alexander's slightly bizarre early morning resignation, Iain Gray took over Labour's mismanagement of Scottish higher and further education until he lost his seat at the election. Cathy Jamieson was then succeeded by Peter Peacock, who was succeeded in turn by Hugh Henry; Wendy Alexander was followed by Jim Wallace and Nicol Stephen.
That made eight Labour and two Liberal Democrat ministers over eight years whose record in the job does not stand comparison with what Fiona Hyslop achieved in two and a half years. I will give members a few examples.
In 1999, Jim Wallace said that the abolition of tuition fees was non-negotiable. He was right, but only once the SNP took power eight years later in 2007. Through eight years of Labour-Lib Dem coalition, university tuition fees stayed on the books, lurking there as the artist formerly known as the graduate endowment. Fiona Hyslop moved to abolish them within one month of taking office and they were gone eight months later.
Labour nearly destroyed our exam system. Not only did the SNP Government save and reform it, but Fiona Hyslop introduced the baccalaureate to give Scottish exams an international comparator and Scots pupils more opportunities.
The Treasury would not change the rules to allow student grants to be paid instead of loans, but the Scottish Government still managed to find an additional £30 million to pump into student support.
The Labour and Lib Dem years were years marked by failure. They were lost years for a generation of Scottish pupils, but the SNP years—though only a quarter of the time the last lot spent in office—have been years of success and achievement. We have delivered the smallest ever class sizes and the free school meals pledge—we should nourish children's bodies and minds. We have delivered on matching Labour's school building programme brick for brick. Karen Whitefield should go and speak to the puppet master in Westminster about getting borrowing powers to build more schools and perhaps we can get on with it. We have delivered a massive increase in nursery provision, restored free education, improved funding for teachers' professional development and taken action on apprenticeships.
I will take no lessons on delivering in education from the Laurel and Hardy parties who did so much to damage Scottish education and hold back the ambitions of our school pupils. The SNP Government has pumped capital resources into our universities to start addressing the massive backlog of repairs and development that built up under the last lot, introduced the ScotAction package to help apprentices through the tough times as Labour's recession started to bite and sorted out the mess in additional support needs that the last bunch left behind. Fiona Hyslop steered the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill through the Parliament and brought in protection for rural schools.
The SNP Scottish Government has delivered real improvements, real change and real benefits to school education. It has shown that Scottish education can be a world leader again and can give Scottish pupils the advantages that we believe they deserve. All that has held Scotland back is the lack of political will that previous Administrations demonstrated and, now that things are moving in the right direction, we should keep adding momentum.
The small-minded, inward-looking petty point scoring that the motion before us exemplifies sums up what is wrong in Scotland. The ambition and determination to succeed that Fiona Hyslop showed demonstrates that we are moving Scotland in the right direction. She can be proud of what she achieved in education and the Scottish Government can be proud of what has been done to improve education. I am proud to support a Government that will put Scotland first, put Scottish education at the forefront of progressive intent and give Scotland's children the best possible start in life.
Christina McKelvie should ask herself: if Fiona Hyslop did so well, why did Alex Salmond sack her?
I will spend a minute quoting Angus Macleod of The Times. He said:
"The roots of Fiona Hyslop's demise as Education Secretary in Alex Salmond's government go back to the period leading up to the publication of the SNP manifesto in 2007.
Ms Hyslop knew that ... she ... would be responsible for delivering a series of ... unrealistic ... manifesto pledges.
She knew that grand-sounding promises to abolish Scottish student debt and reduce class sizes in Primary 1 to Primary 3 throughout Scotland verged on fantasy, requiring a level of financial commitment that was simply not available and a four-year timescale that bordered on the ludicrous.
It is said that Ms Hyslop approached Alex Salmond before the publication of the manifesto to tell him this, but her views were brusquely swept aside by a party leader who would let nothing stand in the way of winning an election."
Mike Rumbles made that up.
No. That was a quotation from The Times of yesterday.
Knowing that its election promises on education were completely undeliverable, the SNP proceeded anyway. I am convinced that it received many votes from students who believed that it would dump their student debt. Only days before the election, one of my student sons received a glossy brochure from Alex Salmond, in which he promised to dump his debt.
Go on: tell us whether he voted SNP.
I will answer Kenny Gibson. My son was tempted to vote SNP on the regional list because of that promise, but he saw it for what it was—a simple, but almost fraudulent attempt to get his vote—and voted rather sensibly for the Liberal Democrats. However, I am convinced that many other students were taken in by the SNP's fraudulent promise to dump their student debt.
Fiona Hyslop was duly appointed as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning by Mr Salmond and landed with the job of delivering an undeliverable package. What did the SNP Government do to solve that problem? It decided on its historic concordat with local authorities—which, as a number of members have said, surely must be an historic episode by now. What a wheeze: at a stroke, the Government transferred to somebody else the responsibility for delivering lower class sizes, increased teacher numbers and free school meals for all. Who took over responsibility for delivering these undeliverable promises? It was our local councils.
That, of course, was welcomed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which was taken in by what seemed to be a fresh approach to local government. Councils were to have freedom, unfettered by the SNP Government, to spend the money that that nice Mr Swinney gave them. In return, they agreed to work towards the SNP Government's impossibly unrealistic education goals.
Unfortunately, COSLA did not see what was happening, which was that local authorities were being given the responsibility without being given the resources to deliver. So, what happened? There has been a loss of more than 2,300 teachers, failure to reduce class sizes and failure on school meals and in preparing for curriculum for excellence. So, with all those failures around her, what did Fiona Hyslop do last Friday? She chose to heap the blame upon our local councils and threatened to nationalise every school in Scotland by taking them under her direct control here in Edinburgh.
For the Liberal Democrats, that was the final straw. On Saturday, out of courtesy, we informed the Government that the Liberal Democrats would lodge a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, to be debated in this debating slot this morning as part of Liberal Democrat business. We were determined to remove Fiona Hyslop from her position and to have a different minister appointed who would take a different approach to tackling the real problems. That was and is our objective, because a different approach is needed.
The Labour Party informed us that it would support our no confidence motion, but I have to say that the Conservatives failed to respond with any commitment to do so. The Government, however, informed us that the SNP Administration would resign en bloc if our no confidence motion succeeded. However, we believed that, for the good of our teachers, parents and children across the country, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, who had shown such appallingly bad judgement, should be replaced. We were very pleased, indeed, that, just two hours before lodging our motion, the Government announced that the cabinet secretary had been replaced after all.
We now have a new Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning—Mike Russell. I hope that he will take a very different approach in his new post. I hope that a new working relationship can be struck—he has said that that is his aim—with every partner in education, and that the days of threatening to take central control of our schools are over. However, he faces a first test tonight at decision time, which is whether he will vote for the Tory amendment. Murdo Fraser made it absolutely clear in the debate that the amendment supports the principle of education vouchers based on the Swedish model—[Interruption.]
I intervened on Murdo Fraser, and he made it absolutely clear that the Tories support education vouchers, and that is the intent of their amendment.
Will the member give way?
I am in my last 20 seconds.
Before we rush to judgment about the new cabinet secretary, we will wait and see—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
I am sorry, Mr Rumbles, but Mr Fraser has a point of order.
I am grateful, Presiding Officer. Can you tell me how you can ensure under standing orders that, when a member speaks in a debate and patently peddles untruths and misrepresents what another member has said, it is possible for the record to be corrected to ensure that the truth is told?
I was not in the chair earlier, so I will need time to look at what happened in the transaction between you and Mr Rumbles. I will look at it and we will report back later.
Please continue, Mr Rumbles, and watch your time.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
The point is that, in the debate, Murdo Fraser confirmed my intervention to the effect that he supports education vouchers on the Swedish model. The key question is whether the SNP will support the Tory position at decision time. We will wait and see whether the SNP will do so: it will be Mike Russell's first test as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning.
Nothing is more important for the future of Scotland than the education of our young people. It is especially important to remember that in these increasingly difficult public expenditure times. That priority was reflected in Labour's 2007 manifesto. To be fair to the Government, there were some good education polices in the SNP manifesto as well, especially around teacher numbers. What we have seen, however, is a disastrous failure in relation to those commitments. Of course, we all know that that came to a head last Friday when we heard the shocking figure of 2,000 teachers having been lost and the pupil to teacher ratio increasing rather than going down.
The most important question in today's debate is why the SNP failed to deliver on its promises. Clearly, it is not fundamentally because of Fiona Hyslop, who has some great qualities. I wish her well in her new position, which I have always regarded as one of the most attractive Government posts, particularly on the culture side.
The best explanation for the Government's failure came from Peter Peacock. His speech will certainly repay study by the new Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, whom I, too, welcome to his post. The fundamental problem is central Government's loss of levers. It has been unable to ensure that national priorities are delivered at local level. It seems to me that the new cabinet secretary needs to address that problem if he wishes to ensure that his and the Government's priorities are delivered.
In the case of the City of Edinburgh Council, the policy failures are now compounded by the budgetary situation. I complained to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth about Edinburgh's settlement last week. The result of that settlement is that Edinburgh has already lost 140 teachers over the past few years but, unfortunately, we have not seen anything yet.
Will the member give way?
I will do so in a minute.
The headline that is being put forward by the City of Edinburgh Council is a 2.5 per cent cut in front-line school budgets for each of the next three years. If the new cabinet secretary is looking for reading, I suggest that he read Edinburgh's department of children and families information pack for councillors. On the consequences of the cuts, it states:
"Schools will be forced to concentrate on core service delivery and this will compromise key areas of the curriculum."
It goes on to say:
"Support for the delivery of the curriculum, including for curriculum for excellence, will inevitably be compromised."
Malcolm Chisholm would obviously wish for more money for the City of Edinburgh Council to deliver services. From which local authority would he take the money?
Obviously, we need a review of local government expenditure. I think that Bob Doris would agree that it looked odd that the average increase for revenue budgets in Scotland's councils was 2.9 per cent, but the increase was only 1.7 per cent for Edinburgh.
There are other interesting things in that council document that the cabinet secretary should look at. For example, free school meals and increased nursery hours will not be delivered, and there are worrying cuts to early intervention and positive action schools.
Many parents have highlighted those concerns to me over the past week or two. I have been to several school councils in that time, as well. The situation has already created an enormous campaign from parents in Edinburgh. However, I know that headteachers are also very concerned. A meeting of secondary heads yesterday regarded the cuts as virtually untenable. I know that primary heads feel the same.
Further losses of teachers will be the main consequence of the budget cuts in Edinburgh, which is a tragedy not only for teachers but for pupils, too. Again, several teachers who have come to my surgeries recently have been desperately upset because they cannot put into practice their commitment to education. The cabinet secretary should pay serious regard to what Des McNulty's amendment proposes on action to retain outstanding young teachers. I hope that the Scottish Government will support that.
It would be remiss of me in a debate on education not to mention the other big constituency education issue for me just now, which is the proposed closure of two primary schools: Fort and Royston. I am not against school closures in principle, but the council has failed to acknowledge the rising primary school rolls in Edinburgh—they will go up by 20 per cent in the next 10 years—particularly in Edinburgh North and Leith. I hope that, in the next two weeks, the council will reconsider; otherwise, the result will be larger classes and schools in my constituency bursting at the seams. It is a matter of particular concern that two thirds of the revenue savings from the proposed school closures will come from further staff cuts. In that sense, school closures are being used as a further mechanism for reducing staff numbers.
I have concentrated mainly on schools, but some students from Edinburgh's Telford College came to see me last week. They are very concerned about late payment of bursaries. I know that there was an announcement about that this week, but even after that announcement, nobody who starts a course in January will receive a bursary. There are therefore still very serious problems around that. I am sure that my colleague Claire Baker will say more about that quite soon.
I join colleagues in welcoming Mike Russell to his new role, and I look forward to seeing him in his new guise at the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. I also join colleagues in paying tribute to the excellent job that Fiona Hyslop did in sometimes difficult circumstances. As others have said, Fiona Hyslop reintroduced the principle of free education to Scotland, reformed school closure procedures to give communities a stronger voice in the future of their schools and presided over the lowest class sizes ever. I look forward to working with her in her new job.
Later today, the Parliament will debate the principles of getting it right for every child. No matter what we agree or disagree on in the course of this morning's debate, we must keep in mind that that must be our aim. We need to get it right for every single child at every point where people rely on local or central Government, whether that is in social care, in the justice system or in education.
The Scottish Government has said that, with the appointment of a new cabinet secretary for education, it wants to introduce a fresh perspective on school education and to find ways of working with local government and all the relevant stakeholders—including the Opposition parties—to deliver the best possible outcomes for children in Scotland. It has been suggested that the Government is considering centralisation of school education services. What the Government in fact said in the light of the statistics—which we all recognise are unacceptable—is that all options should be on the table. That means that greater decentralisation within education authorities is an option as well as greater Government intervention.
It remains the case that the concordat with local government includes a commitment to year-on-year progress towards lower class sizes, on the maintenance of teacher numbers and on the delivery of free school meals. Real progress has been made in some areas. East Ayrshire Council, part of whose area falls within the South of Scotland region, has increased teacher numbers and delivered an average class size of below 18. That shows that, where there is a political will, a way can be found to make such goals a reality.
Of course, in other areas there has been less progress, and everyone involved—both local government and national Government—must ask themselves why. For example, why have local authorities saved £110 million as a result of falling teacher numbers? What has that money been spent on? Why are both the Scottish Government and local authorities burdened with massive private finance initiative and public-private partnership payments because of poorly negotiated contracts from before 2007? Why have the previous Administration's predictions on teacher retirements failed to materialise?
The sky did not fall in on Scotland's education system on 4 May 2007. First mandated by the pre-union Parliament in 1633, Scotland's school education eventually became renowned as being among the best in the world, and we should be proud that we continue to measure our progress against, and constantly strive to achieve, that standard. We are now two and a half years into Scotland's first minority Government and, despite our minority status, we have achieved a remarkable degree of stability, consistency and delivery in the education sector.
Within its first two years, the Government has announced a new school building programme, whereas it took Labour six years, under the Scottish Office and then under devolution, before it even looked at the school estate. The fact remains that the SNP Government is building more schools—we have lifted 100,000 pupils out of unsatisfactory school accommodation. Since May 2007, 236 school projects have been completed, so we are well on track to complete 250 projects over the parliamentary session. In its last four years, Labour completed just 205 school projects. In the South of Scotland, Carluke high school enjoyed its official opening ceremony just this week and Larkhall academy will be officially opened in the not too distant future.
At the end of the day, new schools belong not to any political party but to the communities that they serve. The schools are paid for by those communities through their taxes. Thanks to the SNP, people are getting better value for money wherever alternatives to the discredited PFI/PPP system can be found.
A fortnight ago, the Parliament united to pass the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill, which will be vital legislation in protecting school communities especially—but not only—in rural areas. During that debate, I said:
"Parents, local businesses and community members can play a hugely positive role in such schools and ensure that they are more than just bricks and mortar."—[Official Report, 19 November 2009; c 21429.]
I stand by that comment. Schools are the incubators of the next generation of citizens and leaders. The young people whom we educate today will become the innovators, scientists and business leaders—and even the teachers and politicians—of tomorrow. We owe it to them to ensure that they have the best possible start in life. Indeed, we owe that to ourselves, because we will depend on those nurses, doctors, mechanics and builders in years to come.
We should start by setting the best possible example in the way we debate education policy. Rather than seeking to score points by claiming school building starts—
Will Aileen Campbell give way on that point?
No.
Unfortunately, the Lib Dems and some others have chosen to use this morning's debating time not to outline positive ideas on how education policy might be taken forward but—in Margaret Smith's words—simply for "nat bashing". That approach needs to change if we want to build an education system of which we are all proud.
I am pleased to take part in this morning's debate on education issues, which we have returned to again and again during Opposition debating time. The recent significant drop in teacher numbers prompted not only this morning's debate but a change on the front bench, so let me take this opportunity to welcome Michael Russell to his new role. That role is not without its challenges but, as we have heard, those challenges are of the Scottish Government's own making.
The SNP entered Government with big promises on class sizes, teacher numbers, school buildings and nursery teachers. The First Minister said that the pledge on class sizes would be delivered on by the end of this parliamentary session, but that promise now hides under the cover of the concordat. The SNP promised to maintain teacher numbers to deliver smaller class sizes, but the number of teachers has fallen by more than 2,000. The promise to deliver access to a fully qualified nursery teacher for every nursery-age child has been undermined by a fall of more than 150 pre-school teachers.
The Scottish Government is not delivering on the key promises that it made to the electorate, but Parliament will hold it to account for that. The Parliament's committees have been right to probe ministers about how policies will be delivered, and to question the historic concordat and its value as a method for central Government delivery. The question has always been this: What does the Scottish Government do if local authorities do not deliver? With a new cabinet secretary for education, we might be about to find out.
I will concentrate my remarks on teachers. Many members have expressed concern at the decline in teacher numbers, but there have also been worrying declines at other points on the student's path to becoming a teacher. Figures in a recent answer to a parliamentary question show that the number of graduating student teachers who have been granted provisional registration has dropped by 529 since 2007. Behind those figures lie concerning data on the number of postgraduate diploma in education graduates. Between 2007 and 2008, there was a significant drop—25 per cent—in the number of graduates deciding to pursue education as a career at primary or secondary level. That is cause for concern, because we must attract specialist graduates into teaching and ensure that the most talented graduates consider teaching as a career. The new cabinet secretary must address that issue and ensure that teaching is seen as an attractive profession and as a career with prospects.
In August, the Times Educational Supplement Scotland showed that only 15 per cent of last year's probationary teachers had found permanent full-time employment, compared to 32 per cent in the 2007 survey. I hope that the new cabinet secretary recognises that that must be tackled. We all recognise that new teachers cannot all expect to walk into jobs, but the level of disappointment and disillusionment that probationary teachers face—with only 12 per cent gaining full-time employment—needs to be taken seriously.
The future of Scotland's education sector relies on supporting and training today's young people who might have a talent for teaching. They must not be abandoned in favour of rushed attempts to find short-term solutions. There are real concerns that instead of solving the problem, the Scottish Government's cuts to teacher training places risk storing up problems for the future. In particular, the UCU is concerned that the number of places on BEd degrees will be cut by 40 per cent—that would mean 950 fewer places for graduates to train as primary school teachers—and that places on courses through which people can qualify as secondary school teachers might be cut by 12 per cent. Real concerns exist about the impacts that such policies might have on the teacher training sector, with cuts in teaching budgets and, ultimately, redundancies.
Claire Baker referred to the need for additional powers over local government. Following on from Peter Peacock's comments about the need for additional levers, can she specify whether that means that the Labour Party supports the reintroduction of ring fencing? If not, what levers would Labour use to force through policy?
Peter Peacock made an important contribution to the debate, but now that the SNP is in Government, it is up to the Government to come forward with effective levers to ensure that national priorities are being delivered. The point behind this morning's debate—and the reason why the Government has lost a cabinet secretary—is that the concordat is clearly not working or delivering the education policies that Scotland needs.
Recently, the University of Edinburgh reported that the budget for Moray House school of education will be reduced by up to £2.4 million, with the resulting loss of 40 full-time posts. The initial teacher training courses at the University of Strathclyde, the University of Dundee and the University of Stirling also risk being in the firing line. The SNP's approach to the issue risks doing permanent damage to Scottish education. I urge the new cabinet secretary to take into account the long-term implications of his Administration's rush to reduce the stream of young teachers entering education.
On top of that, as the new cabinet secretary will doubtless be aware, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council is proposing to enforce a 10 per cent cut to the budget that is available to teaching departments at Scottish universities. The data that were returned in response to the Scottish funding council's request for submissions suggest that serious concerns exist about how those deep cuts to a number of subject areas have been calculated. The cuts will affect the lives of lecturers and department staff at universities, and the lives of people who have ambitions to go into teaching, so we are talking about a serious decision that requires serious contemplation of all the options, and detailed research. I urge the cabinet secretary to take the matter seriously and to intervene to ensure that the funding council's proposals are best for the higher education sector and Scotland's wider interests.
As Malcolm Chisholm said, there are still serious concerns about student support and hardship, particularly for further education students. Only this week, the funding council managed to provide only half the funds that had been requested for bursaries and child-care support for FE students.
The policies on which the previous cabinet secretary floundered are still policies of the SNP Government. We have a new Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, but the challenges remain. A change of personnel alone is not enough; there must also be a change of policy if we are to provide the education opportunities that our people deserve.
We move to wind-up speeches.
We will leave it to others to write about the political intrigue of this dramatic week, in which not only was the SNP Government told comprehensively to tear up its schools policy and start again, but a cabinet minister was made to carry the can for the much wider failings of Alex Salmond's Scottish Government. In particular, the historic concordat, which was so trumpeted by the First Minister as representing the beginnings of a new and more mature relationship between central and local government, has been blown apart, as Peter Peacock eloquently described.
Although my party is clear that the purpose of this morning's debate is to set out exactly where we think school education should be going, we have also taken the opportunity to send a strong warning to the First Minister that he will do the greatest possible harm to our public services if he attempts to further weaken the trust within, and the accountability of, our local authorities.
The debate about Fiona Hyslop's failings as a cabinet secretary goes to the heart of what is wrong with the SNP Government, for the reasons that my colleague David McLetchie spelled out, but as Aileen Campbell said, the most important thing now is to identify the way forward. It is all very well slinging mud—perhaps it is good fun—but the bottom line is that teachers, pupils and parents need and deserve meaningful action to improve our schools. They need to know that this Parliament will deliver that improvement as quickly as possible and, in the view of the Scottish Conservatives, that action must not be a decision to retain in any way the status quo.
That is why one of our most important demands is for a firm commitment from the SNP that it will abide by the unanimous will of the Scottish Parliament, as expressed in a vote in January 2009, when it determined that it would undertake to ensure that there would be much more rigorous testing—not more testing, but more rigorous testing—of the three Rs by the time pupils reach the end of primary 7. That was an extremely important commitment for the Parliament to make, and it was based on the overwhelming wishes of parents and teachers, who see improving proficiency in those skills as being the key that will unlock the door to so much in the way of educational attainment. It is essential that that commitment be honoured by the new cabinet secretary.
Even before the SNP took office, there were occasional mutterings from education experts about the poor rate of progress in the educational attainment of too many of our pupils, and about the fact that Scotland was being overtaken in the international league tables. In recent months, those mutterings have, quite rightly, become clarion calls. In September this year, the Scottish Conservatives ran a special schools conference, to which we invited a range of the education experts by whom those clarion calls were made—who, before anyone accuses us of any bias, by no means had Conservative views—to discuss the way forward. They included someone from Sweden, who talked about a system to which we are greatly attracted—for Mr Rumbles's information, it does not use vouchers. It was abundantly clear that, in this country, there is a serious desire for reform. It is glaringly obvious that however one tries to interpret the statistics, overall attainment levels are no better than they were at the start of devolution.
In my speech, before Murdo Fraser made his erroneous point of order, I made the point that he had indicated that he was in favour of the use of vouchers. He confirmed that.
I did not.
It is for the Presiding Officer to make decisions about points of order. That is not what my colleague said. We are attracted to the Swedish system of education, but we are not saying anything about vouchers, which do not exist in Sweden.
At our conference, we set out our plans to allow parents to have much more choice about the school that their children attend and, more important, to give headteachers much more control of how their schools are run, especially when it comes to issues such as teacher recruitment, school budgets and discipline. I stress again that those policies are about devolving powers down to the people at the chalkface, which is exactly the opposite of what Fiona Hyslop announced last Friday, in what I think will turn out to be one of the most ill-considered Government announcements of recent times.
Interestingly, the conference seemed to light a touch-paper. Experts such as Lindsay Paterson, John McLaren and Fred Forrester told us that they welcome the Conservative initiative to engage in radical thinking. That reaction was most encouraging; even more encouraging were the utterances of the SNP's David Berry, who is leader of East Lothian Council, who said that there must be much more radical thinking if we are to get schools back on a sound footing. I agree very much with that line, because our second major demand—alongside our demand that testing be sorted out—is that we need an open, objective and radical debate about how to move forward, at the end of which we will find a blueprint for schools that will restore trust among pupils, parents and teachers.
Can we expect the new cabinet secretary to deliver in that respect? Given some of the evidence that Murdo Fraser and David McLetchie cited, we can probably "Russell" up a few more themes. Three years ago, in the Times Educational Supplement Scotland, Michael Russell spoke about putting all school management options on the table. He asked:
"would the establishment of charter or foundation schools within some of our cities raise standards because of the benefit of competition and give children in some of our most depressed neighbourhoods a better set of educational and life opportunities?"
No.
That is Conservative party policy. Michael Russell asked:
"Could parents successfully set up their own schools?"
That is Conservative party policy. He said that
"The SNP will create units for persistent offenders where they can be educated as well as be assisted to change their behaviour."
That is Conservative party policy. He said:
"we will make vocational education far more accessible to all S3 and S4 pupils".
That is Conservative party policy. He said:
"we will encourage diversity in education".
That, too, is Conservative party policy.
The new cabinet secretary has an excellent legacy of espousing the true values of education policy. I invite him to support the amendment in his name—I am sorry; in the name of Murdo Fraser.
As many members have done, I welcome Mr Russell to his new role as cabinet secretary. In addition, I thank his predecessor for the contribution that she has made to Scottish education over many years. At the weekend, we thought that we would be coming to bury Fiona Hyslop this morning; instead, we have come to praise her. I recognise that politics can be cruel, but regardless of the trials and tribulations that Fiona Hyslop faced as cabinet secretary, not only is she an extremely likeable person but many of us appreciated her decency and her personal commitment to improving Scotland's education system, both in opposition and as a Government minister.
Nearly every speaker has emphasised that the faults and failings that beset our education system are those of the Government as a whole and not those of one minister. More worrying, members have pointed out that the problems have not gone away. The list is daunting: the lack of jobs for teachers; the failure to make progress on class sizes; the inability of the Scottish Futures Trust to deliver even one new building; the danger of drift in the curriculum for excellence; the underresourcing of additional support for learning; the decrease, as opposed to increase, in the number of nursery teachers; the inexcusable delay in providing two hours of physical education a week; the mounting concern about student support; and the growing anxiety over governance and funding in higher and further education. It reads like a grotesque inverse of the SNP manifesto, the Government commitments in which are still dangled tantalisingly in front of the gullible by the First Minister and loyal back benchers. To the rest of us, it serves as a reminder of dashed expectations and unfulfilled promises.
The cabinet secretary has a choice to make. He can develop a new relationship with Parliament—I note that that offer has been extended by all sides—with Opposition parties that genuinely want to prioritise education and with local government, which wants an open and honest discussion of resources and commitments; or he can use his talents to peddle the same old sophistry, the same half-truths and false assertions of progress. I hope that the minister will grasp the opportunity that is open to him, although, like Murdo Fraser, I note that the early signs are not that good.
The minister opened his remarks, bizarrely, by claiming credit for the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill. Minutes previously, the First Minister had laid that achievement at the feet of the minister's predecessor. Mr Russell went on to complain that his outspoken comments on local government and COSLA—they are a crucial issue—had been misrepresented. Of course, he did not dispute the accuracy of the remarks; he merely said that they had been taken out of context. He wanted the full quotation to be given. He did not want us just to know that he thinks that councils are "arrogant" and "mealy-mouthed"; he thinks that they are "self-serving" and "domineering", too.
I am happy to provide a copy of the full article to the member and, when he has read it, I am happy to debate it with him. However, if he cannot be bothered to read the full article, he should not simply refer to two lines from it. That does not do him, or anybody else, any good.
I was trying to be generous, but I suspect that I have touched a raw nerve on day one.
Many members have commented on the relationship with local government—Peter Peacock's remarks on that in particular were insightful and welcome—and have said that that relationship is a crucial test for the minister. How will he develop it? I was worried because Mr Russell continued in the same vein of denial. In his opening speech, his key argument was that there is no crisis. Indeed, he felt so strongly about that that he repeated it three times. We had an early start; I think that he had said it three times before the cock crowed. If there is no crisis, does he accept and acknowledge that the problems that face us are "unacceptable"? That was the description that his predecessor gave following the publication of the teacher employment figures on Friday. To lose 1,000 teaching jobs last year may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose more than 1,000 again this year looks like carelessness.
So far, the Scottish Government's response has been to make matters worse. Cutting £10 million from initial teacher training will mean savage redundancies at Jordanhill and Moray House, and in Dundee and elsewhere. Margaret Smith and Claire Baker made that point. That will threaten the future of those institutions. The Government increased the number of teacher training places by 300 only two years ago. There is now a desperate retraction. In a presentation to MSPs yesterday, the UCU warned us to beware of the long-term damage of short-term political fixes. There is no doubt that if the cuts are implemented, they will damage our capacity to produce the teachers whom we will need in a mere few years' time.
We do not need fewer teachers; teaching posts simply need to be retained. The SNP made a promise about that in its manifesto, which it repeated in the concordat. It is clear that offering financially strapped local authorities the supposed opportunity to take on more debt to pay for early retirement schemes is no solution. As the teacher employment working group proposed, and as my colleague Des McNulty said, the winding-up scheme that is offered to teachers can be made more attractive, but there needs to be a guarantee that the posts will be replaced. Labour has made a specific proposal that could make a real difference and which the profession supports.
I had to laugh when I saw the remarks that the previous Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning had made last week on why the education system must change. I am not sure whether a real promise was made or whether there was a diversion, but she said:
"overall, councils have clearly spent over £110 million of funding provided by the Scottish Government for teachers' salaries on other purposes."
I do not know how many times in the past two years members of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee have asked the minister and her officials to put a figure on exactly what is in the local government settlement for education. Just last month, we went round the houses again on class sizes. However, everything is suddenly clear: the figure is £110 million. I say to Mr Russell that if the Government wants us to accept its arguments that policies such as those on teacher numbers and class sizes are fully funded, we need transparency, not figures that have been pulled from a hat when that has suited.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but Mr Macintosh is finishing. Indeed, he should have finished.
Mr Russell has shown his willingness to adopt fresh thinking. I am worried that some of his ideas are too right wing for Murdo Fraser and the Tory party, but I hope that he will continue in a similar vein and that there will be a fresh start in office.
I am so overwhelmed by what Ken Macintosh said that I am still mulling it over. I have heard many bizarre things this morning, but the view that we should respond to the alleged crisis in teacher numbers by going on training more teachers seems to be the strangest that I have ever heard in politics—and I have heard many strange things in politics. I heard some of those things over two or three years when I was a member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee with Mr Macintosh.
Let us try to take a rational view of what we will all try to do together in education. I hope that what we have heard this morning is, if I may quote, the
"end to ane auld sang".
I am sure that some members want to harp on about issues in education simply because they think that they will get a political bounce out of doing so, but the opinion polls show that the bounce is not there. Therefore, let us now focus seriously on the politics of ideas, and let us try to bring real ideas to the Scottish education debate with some consensus.
Rarely has so much been said in a single morning about the Swedish system of education by people who have no knowledge whatsoever of it. The reality, of course, is that we need new ideas in Scottish education.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
No. Let me finish.
Let us start from where we are. I made that plea at the beginning of the debate, and I am making it again at the end. As I have said, hundreds of thousands of young people are being taught well by tens of thousands of teachers in thousands of schools. That is the real situation in Scotland.
There is a local authority delivery mechanism for education in Scotland, and local authorities and the Government have a good relationship. Let us build on that from where we are, and in the process, let us bring in the fresh air of thinking that is shorn of ideology. We need good ideas. I want to refer to one or two of the good ideas that have been given.
I start with Peter Peacock, who made one of the best speeches in the debate. He did so with the tremendous experience that he gained from the job that I am taking on. I hope that I can do that job as well as he did. He opened up the clear divide that exists and talked about whether we should retain tools to direct in relationships with local authorities, or whether we should develop a different relationship with them that relies on a different method, involving mutual respect, to achieve shared objectives. I do not agree with Mr Peacock's argument, but I accept it. Malcolm Chisholm raised the same point well. We need to debate the matter.
We need to bring in fresh thinking and ideas. I heard some fresh ideas from the Labour Party, although not as many as I would like, and one or two from the Tories, many of which I do not like. I am not the father of the Swedish education system, but I am glad about that, because Liz Smith does not even know what it is. I regret that I heard not a single new idea from the Liberal Democrats.
Yesterday, I said that I want to reset my relationship with Scottish local authorities. I also want to reset the relationships in the Parliament between the parties on the issue of education. I have already met the education spokespeople. We will disagree and no doubt there will be endless theatre in the chamber, but I want to ensure that we make practical progress on what we want to achieve.
I want to point up the key issues that we need to progress. Of course, the reality is that money is an issue; indeed, it is always an issue. We have heard again and again from Labour Mr McNulty's plea for more money. If that plea is to be applied to every policy that we discuss, Mr McNulty might start the process by persuading his colleagues south of the border that we need a more realistic assessment of Scottish financing than has been shown by the removal of £500 million. I see that Mr Whitton, who has not been involved in the debate, wishes to comment on that, but I will not let him, because he has not been in the chamber. I want those who take part in the debate to be people who are committed to Scottish education and who want to be involved in the discussions.
I look forward to seeing the literacy commission's report, which I will treat seriously. If ideas come from any political party that have been well worked through and put forward by people who are trying to contribute, I will treat them seriously. I look forward to appearing before the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. Some of the best times that I had in the first parliamentary session were as a member of an education committee that worked well. Its members worked closely together. I also look forward to appearing before the convener of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. Perhaps when I do so, we will move on from her description of me as Worzel Gummidge. I do not mind that she described me in that way, but I suspect that it was not right to describe COSLA's education spokesperson as an Aunt Sally. That was not helpful or productive. However, I accept it when she says that that was not a cheap debating point. Let us move on, and let us have a relationship based on discussing ideas.
I was struck by one or two other contributions to the debate. The issue of post-probationary teachers is extremely serious. There are a range of reasons why we find ourselves in that position, for example the recession and the cutting of teacher numbers. What local authorities have done is indisputable. There are issues of long-term planning. I am old enough to remember that planning for teacher numbers is a boom-and-bust scenario that has been going on for not one, not two, but three generations. The direct relationship between teacher numbers and class sizes is, of course, another issue.
I am concerned about every individual whose potential is being wasted because they are not contributing their all in their chosen profession. Alas, that does not apply only to teaching. There is great disappointment throughout society at the effects of a worldwide recession that, I have to say, is made worse by political decisions south of the border. However, I make a commitment to work as hard as I can to ameliorate that situation, just as I will work hard with my colleagues Mr Brown, Mr Ingram and others to take forward what I see as the key issues in Scottish education. I will return to those key issues later.
I am not ashamed in the slightest, as David McLetchie hoped I might be, about being passionate about the idea of class sizes. Why am I not ashamed of that? Because there is incontrovertible evidence that in the early years of school, when children are forming their ideas and their abilities, if we teach them in a way that reflects that contact between teachers and children, they move forward faster and further, not just in primary school or in secondary school but in their life chances.
I think that it was Sir Isaac Newton who said that education is not the filling of a well but the lighting of a fire. The job that we must all do in this Parliament, with our collective responsibility for Scottish education, is to light that fire and ensure that young people have the best chances from the start of life, right through. Education is a lifelong process and every individual should benefit. I commit myself to that this morning. I want to do so with the other spokespeople and the other parties in this Parliament. I make that offer. Please do not spurn it. We have had our fun this morning; let us move forward together seriously.
We have had a lively debate, which will no doubt be the first of many. I hope that the cabinet secretary accepts that all members genuinely want to work with him. That is certainly the view on the Liberal Democrat benches.
However, Mr Russell accused us of bringing nothing new to the debate. That is rather unfortunate. He was speaking over my remarks a couple of times and did not quite hear, but I said that we thought that there was a real argument to be made for greater powers to be devolved to headteachers. We suggested dropping the free school meals pledge and freeing up £30 million for the cabinet secretary to focus on the real priorities for Scottish education. We asked him to stagger the loss of teacher training positions in our university education departments to ensure that we maintain capacity for the population increases to come. I also asked him to refocus on the key issue of smaller class sizes in deprived areas. Mr Russell may come to rely on our support on that issue in the months to come.
Behind the bluster, there is a genuine interest in and hunger for progress on all sides of Parliament. Like others, Peter Peacock was right when, from a position of some experience, he highlighted the difficulties and what are often the different agendas of national and local government. That is the nub of the problem. Peter Peacock made that clear when he said that the SNP
"gave away all the levers."
That is why the problems that beset Fiona Hyslop are problems that now beset the new cabinet secretary.
The key issue is how the Government deals with local government and how it takes forward a concordat that has failed to deliver not only on policies on which the SNP stood, but on policies for which there is a great deal of support throughout Parliament. Peter Peacock made an interesting point about the Government's lack of ability to deliver, and the impact of that on the cabinet secretary's ability to secure funding for education within the Cabinet. Member after member pointed out that that key issue must be addressed.
I said in my earlier remarks that we want greater devolution of powers and funding to headteachers, and we will be driven to improve attainment. We need to discuss how we deliver education services, and we have heard some ideas on that today. However, it is fascinating to witness the Tories being outflanked on the right by the new cabinet secretary. From my standpoint, it is not only fascinating but slightly worrying. It is also slightly worrying to hear pupils being referred to as customers. Last week, we were concerned to hear the Government threatening to centralise powers over schools.
Liz Smith is right when she says that the status quo is not acceptable. Is it right that in the face of a fall-off of attainment, for example in secondary 1 and S2, we do not address new means of teaching that might assist those pupils? Is it right that we do not give headteachers the tools that they need to improve their schools?
Over the past two years, we have been used to the Government blaming everyone else, so it was slightly refreshing that the first thing that the new cabinet secretary did was to take credit for the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill. He did not even leave that achievement with his predecessor. However, while many of us are focused on the real policy issues and the abiding problems that the new cabinet secretary must tackle, every one of us put on record in some way the achievement of the previous cabinet secretary. Just in the past few days, Fiona Hyslop had support throughout Parliament, not only for the bill but for the manner in which she took it forward. We all wish her well in her new position.
We agree that Scotland can have a world-beating education service. In fact, we acknowledge improved exam results and we are clear that studies suggesting that Scotland is falling behind are open to interpretation. Our focus on issues on which the cabinet secretary must provide clear leadership should in no way be taken as an attack on Scotland's teachers or Scotland's schools. It is completely the opposite.
Keith Brown shouts out "crisis" from a sedentary position. When I used the word earlier, I was quoting from the EIS—the biggest teaching union in Scotland—when it said that the loss of 2,300 teachers in Scotland was an "emerging crisis" for Scottish education. I agree that that represents an emerging crisis for teacher numbers. Michael Russell said that in fact it was more hunky-dory than a crisis. However, I was clear when I said that we will not attack councils and threaten to take away their powers over schools. We will not run down teachers but try to support them. We will build on the firm foundations of a comprehensive Scottish education system that we believe to be fundamentally sound and the best way forward, so that children in all our communities can attain the best out of that system.
I wanted to hear at least an acknowledgement from the SNP that there are concerns. However, instead of listening to the concerns from the EIS, the SSTA, the Confederation of British Industry Scotland and leading academics on progress on the curriculum for excellence, the new cabinet secretary accuses us of scaremongering. That is deeply worrying. If the cabinet secretary is serious when he says that he wants to build a new working relationship with every one of us, particularly the Opposition spokespeople, he must at least accept that when we hear concerns expressed by people who are pre-eminent in their field and who have a particular interest in this most important of portfolios, we, as members of Parliament, will take those concerns seriously. We will take them on board and we will ask the cabinet secretary to work with us to tackle those problems. There are real issues.
Margaret Smith was not listening.
When I focused earlier on the issue of class sizes, which I know is a particular interest of yours—in fact, you could be said to be, if not the father of the entire Swedish education system, the father of the SNP class size policy—I noticed that you were engaged in a conversation. We all do that.
Please speak through the chair.
The issue of class sizes is important for the cabinet secretary; it is also an important issue for us. It is important with regard to tackling the disparity between the rich and the poor and between certain areas in our society.
We stand ready to work to improve teacher training numbers and Scottish education. I hope that the cabinet secretary, despite some of the remarks that he has made today, intends to do the same.