School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1813, in the name of Peter Peacock, that the School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill be passed. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
It is a pleasure to open the final debate on this small but important bill, which is important for the Executive and for Scotland more widely. I thank Euan Robson for all his work during the detailed stages of the bill. I also thank the Education Committee for its detailed consideration of the bill, and I thank the committee clerks and Executive staff who worked hard on it.
The bill stands as testimony to the Executive's commitment to bring about improvement in Scottish education. Ministers have a duty to improve the quality of education in all Scotland's schools. The bill will ensure that ministers have the necessary and proportionate powers to drive forward the improvement agenda.
The first part of the bill will allow ministers to ensure that education authorities and schools strive to reach the highest possible standards; the second part will give a long overdue update to existing legislation on independent schools. As we have stressed on a number of occasions during the bill's passage, failure to implement the recommendations of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education does not of itself constitute a breach of duty under the section 70 powers in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Therefore, there is a gap in the system. There is currently no statutory obligation on schools or local authorities to take action on HMIE recommendations. The bill addresses that gap; it is not about ministerial takeovers or the micromanagement of schools, but about ensuring that education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools take the action that they should take when that is necessary.
The second part of the bill, which is on independent schools, has met with widespread approval from within and outside the independent sector. The changes that we will make to the existing legislation will make provisions more up to date, consistent and workable. We will continue to work with the independent sector on a revision of the regulations on independent schools.
We have taken forward all the committee's recommendations and amended the bill as a result of the committee's comments and suggestions. We have made a number of changes to the bill with the aim of ensuring that it meets the needs of ministers, local authorities, schools in the state and independent sectors and, of course, our children, who deserve the highest possible standards of school education.
The bill forms an important part of our improvement framework. I hoped that all members of Parliament would support the bill today but, sadly, it looks like that will not be the case if the behaviour of the Opposition parties at stage 1 is anything to go by. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton sought, as ever, to probe the bill at stage 2. He also sought, in his normal courteous manner, to do so at stage 3 and to make amendments. Sadly, he and his party, in cahoots with the Scottish National Party, opposed the bill in principle. Here we have another unholy alliance between the SNP and the Tories. It is opposition for opposition's sake on the one hand and purposeful destruction of constructive ideas on the other hand.
Those of us who oppose the bill do so from a principled point of view. Only a limited amount of legislative time is available and we believe that it is a complete and utter waste of Parliament's time for the bill to be brought before us. There are far more pressing education matters that could and should have been addressed by the Executive during the time that it has available for education.
It is extraordinary that the Opposition parties should seek to prevent a Government—any Government—from having the powers to bring about improvement in our education system. It is even more extraordinary to see members of the Tory party pretending to support local government in discussions on the merits of the bill when they propose to abolish any local government control over education in the future.
It is in the interests of the Tories, who are intent on dismantling state education, to have underperforming schools in Scotland. Indeed, it is part of their agenda to have underperforming schools in Scotland, in order to make the market-driven, two-tier education system that they want work. They want chaos for the many for the sake of choice for the few. They do not want a universally excellent system in Scotland; they want one in which people will probably have to leave their communities to track down a decent education.
Destructive and disreputable though their intentions towards Scottish education are, at least voting against the bill has a purpose for the Tories, given their agenda. The SNP, as we know, does not even have an agenda for education in Scotland. SNP members have nothing to say, no ideas and no philosophy at all about education. The only idea that we have heard from the Sturgeon-Salmond manifesto is that of using our education system to indoctrinate Scotland's children in Scottish industrial history. No doubt it will be a version of history that the SNP decides and one that will blame London for any past economic ills. If SNP members vote against the bill today, it will not be for reasons of policy, because they do not have any policies, or for reasons of principle, because I do not believe that they have any principles either. Their opposition will be nakedly opportunist—opposition for opposition's sake.
The Opposition parties still have time to redeem themselves. They can still join us in standing up for Scotland's children. If they do not, I will be delighted to point out time and again to Scotland's parents that the Opposition parties did not want ministers to have the power and ability to bring about improvement in their children's schools or to be accountable to Parliament in the process. Taking the powers to bring about improvement wherever it is needed is what the bill is about. We will not turn our backs when action is needed and we will not wash our hands of our responsibility. It is right to have those powers and it will be right to use them whenever they are needed. It is right to stand up for the interests of Scotland's children. That is what the bill does and I commend it to Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I was going to start off by saying something nice about the Minister for Education and Young People, but I am beginning to have second thoughts about that. After the events of this week, it would be remiss of me not to congratulate him and his deputy on still being here to finish the job that they started in steering the bill through Parliament. Those events also serve as a reminder that ministers and, indeed, ministerial assurances can be here today and gone tomorrow.
I have no doubt that the minister is sincere in his arguments and in his intention to use but rarely, if at all, the powers that the bill, once enacted, will confer on him. However, he has failed to convince many beyond the ranks of his own department and the members around him that there is any need for the proposed new intervention powers contained in part 1 of the bill. Most, if not all, of the education authorities that responded to the consultation exercise on the bill suggested that there was already a range of checks and balances in place and that there was little or no evidence to suggest that local authorities or schools do not respond to issues raised in HMIE reports.
The notion that new powers of intervention were needed to close the loop with the inspection and monitoring mechanisms established under the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, which allows ministers to fulfil a duty to secure improvement in the quality of school education, is at best arguable and at worst disingenuous. Many in the education world believe that the existing powers of ministerial intervention in education authorities that fail to meet statutory duties under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 would be sufficient to do the job when combined with section 2 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, which places a duty on education authorities to secure improvement in the quality of education provided in schools managed by them.
It is notable that opposition to the bill has, if anything, grown over the course of its passage through the Parliament. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland have expressed alarm at what they see as the destruction of the partnership of trust between HMIE and local authorities. The recommendations in HMIE reports will, in effect, become instructions backed by the threat of ministerial intervention, which will remove management control from our democratically accountable local authorities.
The scope for intervention ranges far beyond the promotion of the quality of school education to any matter relating to the school, as I pointed out during the debate on Lord James's group of amendments earlier. Given the scope for intervention, it can easily be envisaged that ministers will yield to the temptation of interfering when political and departmental pressures are brought to bear, and creeping centralisation could well set in.
Does the member accept that the professional standing of HMIE is central to the debate? However desirable it might be for ministers to intervene, they could not do that without the HMIE report that gives them the basis in fact on which so to do.
I accept the point about HMIE. However, the legislation puts HMIE in an invidious position in which its inspectors will be made responsible for flagging up issues requiring ministerial intervention. Who knows what pressures might be brought to bear on the inspectors?
Scottish National Party members believe that part 1 of the bill is the thin end of a potentially destabilising wedge that could plunge the management of our education system into disarray. Given that part 2 of the bill is not of vital import, we are duty bound to vote against this ill-conceived bill.
As far as part 2 of the bill is concerned, the Conservatives have no objection to Executive attempts to remove ambiguity from existing legislation to ensure that all persons who are employed in independent schools have to undergo the necessary checks to ensure that they are proper persons to work with children. The issue has been of particular concern to the Scottish Council of Independent Schools.
In his explanatory letter to the Education Committee, the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People explained that the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 provides robust safeguards for children's well-being. I welcome his assurances in that connection.
It is essential that employers seek disclosure checks for all proposed employees so that they avoid the risk of committing an offence by employing a disqualified person. It is widely acknowledged that there are unacceptable delays—in some cases, of up to 12 weeks—in processing applications to Disclosure Scotland. I ask the minister to confirm that the matter will receive his continuing attention and that he considers the welfare of children to be paramount.
However, it is part 1 of the bill that has given rise to controversy. Since its inception, the School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill has met substantial local authority opposition. That is because councils see the powers that are contained in part 1 of the bill as, at best, unnecessary or, at worst, a waste of parliamentary time.
As I outlined in the chamber during the stage 1 debate, I believe that there are no fewer than four grounds for rejecting the bill. First, there are existing powers of enforcement under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Secondly, there is no widespread evidence to show that local authorities are not taking the inspectorate's recommendations seriously or that they are failing to act on improvements that HMIE considers necessary. Thirdly, the bill undermines local democracy by its imposition of yet another centralising agenda, as has happened with hospitals. Finally, COSLA views the bill as a waste of parliamentary time. A considerable number of local councils have deep reservations about the bill, including West Lothian Council, East Renfrewshire Council, East Ayrshire Council and Glasgow City Council to mention but a few.
The minister rightly said that the Conservatives support a policy of devolved school management. In answer to an oral question, he said that he too supported that policy. Although we wish to see decision making in respect of standards being taken at school level, it is our conviction that HMIE inspectors are best qualified, have the expertise and should and must remain the prime movers in monitoring teaching standards and education in Scotland's schools. We also believe that local authorities should have the right to respond effectively to the inspectors' reports without unnecessary political interference from on high at the behest of ministers. We do not wish the bill to pass, as we are the champions of local democracy.
I congratulate the minister and the principal Opposition spokespeople on their attempts to engender excitement in a debate on what I can only describe as a modest little bill. It is hard to get excited about the proposals. There is not even an issue of principle behind the bill because, as Lord James and Adam Ingram pointed out, fairly substantial powers already exist for ministers to intervene in the operation of schools by local authorities.
In light of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 and as part of the agenda for improving education, the bill will close a loophole. Frankly, it is going over the top to suggest that the bill will destroy the partnership of trust and plunge the education system into disarray or to say "Who knows what pressures will be put on HMIE?" The unholy alliance between Lord James and the Conservative party on one hand and COSLA on the other beggars belief.
The bottom line is that this is a modest little bill, which seeks to achieve a modest but necessary part of the agenda to improve education. Nobody disputes for a minute that the principal role lies with education authorities, which are elected with a local democratic mandate but which do not exist outwith the rule of law. They exist within an HMIE monitoring regime.
It is fair to say that HMIE has the greatest reputation of all monitoring organisations in Scotland and is widely recognised as doing a good job. The idea that under the bill HMIE will be interfered with by ministers does not stand up to scrutiny. The bill will allow HMIE to draw significant issues to the attention of ministers. By amending the bill at stage 2—largely with my own amendments—we addressed some of the issues that might have given cause for concern and improved the bill, as the minister was gracious enough to acknowledge.
The bill is important but modest. It is necessary that it is passed. There is no dispute about part 2, which relates to independent schools. All the controversy centres on part 1. However, the bill will close a loophole. It ought to be passed and I urge the Parliament to back it today.
We will have three-minute speeches from here.
When I first read the bill—
Mr Harper, we can give you four minutes.
Thank you.
When I first read the bill, I also thought that it was a modest little bill but, like Lord James, I have been lobbied by the Educational Institute of Scotland and COSLA, and when one is lobbied by the EIS and COSLA one has to listen. They are seriously concerned—and their concerns are well founded—about the extra powers that are to be given to ministers. I will have to think carefully about how the Green party will vote, because it is a serious and fundamental flaw in the bill that there is no qualification on the varying powers.
At first, I hoped that the bill would be part of a process of further integration of the private education sector into the public education sector. We are out of step with the rest of Europe. Peter Peacock referred to a two-tier system. We have such a system with private and public sectors, never mind within the public sector. The system is out of date and should undergo a process of driven change with standards in public education being driven up and private education being integrated through a process of assimilation over a period of time.
Presiding Officer, I do not propose to use up all of the four minutes that you so generously afforded me, for the simple reason that there is a serious point that Green members shall debate among ourselves before we vote on the bill. Whether we vote against or abstain, members will have to wait and see.
We can give four minutes to all speakers in the open debate.
In my opinion, this so-called "modest little bill" is a complete waste of time.
Yesterday, the headline on the front page of The Herald was "Indiscipline on the rise, say teachers". That is the issue on which we should be focusing. We should concentrate on how we can help our teachers to support our young people appropriately in a modern, everyday school—a school with an average number of children in an average place. We should be talking about the young people throughout the country who are railing against the establishment and who are distracting others because they are unable to settle into school. We should be asking how we can ensure that our education is appropriate for all our young people throughout the country rather than considering a bill that will give more powers to ministers to intervene.
Why will ministers need to intervene? I have no evidence of any school that has not implemented HMIE's recommendations and I know of no case in which a local authority has ignored such recommendations. We have asked the Minister for Education and Young People that question and we are still waiting for an answer. I totally oppose the giving of the new powers to ministers, as do COSLA—as has been mentioned—the EIS and the local authorities. The bill that we are debating today, which the Education Committee has had to focus on for weeks, is a waste of time. We should be doing far better things.
I am still searching for the reason for the bill. I wonder whether the damage that will be done to schools and communities when schools are singled out has been considered. Is that standing up for Scotland's children? Is the way forward to have descriptions all over the newspapers of how a particular school is failing and has not achieved the targets that have been set or of how the school or the local authority has not complied with recommendations? Do we want to devastate a school's whole community—the staff, the pupils and the parents—simply because the minister wants the powers that are in the bill?
I want to know what the hidden agenda is. Is it to drive forward the private agenda or to force through more assessments and inappropriate tests at the wrong stage, in intermediate 1 and primary 7? There is pressure on head teachers to ensure that they get above-average results in their assessments. Head teachers are being bullied by the directorate in their local authorities because their results are below average, even though they might have children who come into school with no language skills. That is what we should be considering. I am angry about the focus on the bill and all the time that we are wasting on it.
Part 2 of the bill is of no interest to me. It is important that we support changes to safeguard young people and that we ensure that such changes happen, so I do not oppose part 2. However, I certainly oppose part 1. I feel that the minister has reached the stage at which he does not trust HMIE, the local authorities or the schools. As has been said, the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 gave powers to Scottish ministers to request an inspection of a local authority—that can already be done. Ministers have the power to intervene in that way, so I do not think that they need the new powers in the bill.
What school or local authority in Scotland has not complied with HMIE recommendations? As someone who was a teacher for 27 years, I know that, any time HMIE inspected any establishment that I was in, I complied with its recommendations, as did the rest of the staff. We usually ended up being highly stressed throughout the process; everyone jumped through hoops to ensure that they complied with HMIE recommendations. That is an indication of how important people consider HMIE and its inspections of schools to be.
I ask the minister to give me some answers. What is his agenda? Why did he introduce the bill? I have asked those questions before and I still have not had the answers; I am waiting for them. We will not support the passing of the bill.
I support the bill, which has now completed its amendment stages before the Education Committee and the full Parliament. It is a small but important part of the legislative framework for our schools and should be seen in the wider context of the improvement agenda. There are two distinct parts to it: one modernises the regulatory regime that governs independent schools and has been welcomed by all parties—I will return to that in a minute—and the second focuses on ministerial powers of intervention, which although not exactly controversial have generated some concern in some quarters.
The strongest criticism has come from our colleagues in local government. They are anxious that the bill might undermine their role in managing and running local schools, but I do not believe that that is its purpose. As I have pointed out on many occasions, the Government's record on devolving decision making to the most appropriate and most local level is good, and I believe that the idea of reading the bill as being about who pulls the strings—who has the ultimate authority or control—is irrelevant. The bill's focus is the local school and, in particular, the few local schools throughout the country that, to be frank, are not doing well enough. When we talk about failing schools, we mean that the pupils and the hardworking majority of teachers in such schools are being failed by a lack of clear leadership, strong management or good governance. In that situation, pupils, parents and teachers do not care whether the support and assistance that they need come from local government or the Executive; they just want to get back on track.
The bill will do nothing to prevent good partnership working from improving a school, but it will help ministers to respond when serious problems have been identified. The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 placed a clear duty on ministers to secure improvement in our schools. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education has put in place a new inspection regime and, together with our local authorities, all those who have a role to play in working to improve our schools are now able to do so in partnership and with the necessary legal framework to support that partnership.
The second part of the bill, which introduces a modern regulatory regime for independent schools, has not been controversial. In fact, it has been an excellent example of the Executive, the Parliament and the public working consensually to achieve a shared objective, which makes it even more extraordinary that the Opposition parties cannot bring themselves to support the bill. Some members have argued that we should not waste parliamentary time on the reform, but I do not support that line of thinking because, on that basis, no lesser measure would ever be given parliamentary time, as we would be dealing only with the headline grabbers and the hot political issues of the day. There must always be time for thoughtful and considered reform of statute, particularly when, as with the bill, the result is to extend the improvement agenda to all our schools and all who have a role in their success. I am happy to support those measures.
I commend the School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill to the Parliament.
It is interesting that the two back-bench members from the Executive parties who have spoken in this debate made speeches that almost damned the bill with faint praise. Robert Brown's opening remarks were hardly supportive of the bill, but he eventually came round to suggesting that it was modest but necessary. I am deeply unconvinced by Kenneth Macintosh's argument that we need the bill although it is not a headline-grabbing measure, because the evidence to support that contention has not been presented to the committee or the Parliament. If we examine the language of the bill, we find that it is all about teacher bashing and how the Executive will address failing schools—the word "failure" appears regularly throughout the bill. However, there is no evidence to suggest that education authorities or schools do not act on HMIE's recommendations or that they will not do so in the future.
The bill significantly undermines the relationship between local authorities, schools and the Executive. Kenneth Macintosh said that that is not its purpose, but the trust between them undoubtedly could be broken as a consequence of the bill.
Why does the member think that trust would be broken by the new ministerial power, given all the other ministerial powers in this area that already exist? What is the difference between them?
The measures are unnecessary because the powers already exist. The suspicion that was raised by Rosemary Byrne—that there is some other agenda here—will undermine trust and confidence. I really do not understand why there is a need to use such a big stick. We have devoted considerable parliamentary time to the bill against a background of significant difficulties in education.
We have problems associated with discipline, and the Executive's well-motivated inclusion agenda—which had support from throughout the chamber—has led to some difficulties. Exclusions from schools have been causing problems. There is a tension around inclusion and exclusion, which needs to be addressed. We could instead have used the time spent on this bill to address that tension and the discipline problems around it. We could also have used the time to address the difficulty surrounding the 30 per cent of pupils—and rising—who leave school with few or no qualifications. Instead, we have before us a modest and, in my view, extremely unnecessary measure.
The language in the bill is wrong. The legislation is about trying to lay blame for failures in education; it is also about a failing education agenda. I am very disappointed that we have ended up using parliamentary time on the bill. There has been no clamour for the legislation from anyone other than the ministers. I am not aware that Johann Lamont, for example, has been saying to the Executive from the back benches that there is a weakness in its legislation that needs to be dealt with. The only people who have said that are ministers—but who was responsible for that legislation? The ministers were—not the present ministers, Peter Peacock and Euan Robson, but their predecessors, who steered through the previous bill. However, no one else is saying that the bill before us is required.
I have heard those arguments from Brian Adam before and I know that he makes them sincerely. We have heard of several examples of poor inspection reports of schools. I can think of one secondary school that was judged to be good or very good in no category. It was mostly unsatisfactory in its performance and only occasionally fair.
What would the Scottish National Party do if appropriate measures to bring about the necessary change in the performance of such schools were not being taken? It seems that Brian Adam is seeking to ensure that ministers have no power to act in those circumstances. What would the SNP do if improvement was not taking place?
Mr Peacock is trying the same line that he used in the stage 1 debate. [Interruption.] I will address the point, if the minister is capable of remaining in his seat long enough. The minister cites one example. We believe that the required powers already exist. We do not believe that people are not acting on inspection reports. The minister has still not presented any evidence to suggest that he does not already have the necessary power. He has presented no evidence to suggest that when reports say that schools are not of an appropriate standard, action is not being taken—either by the schools themselves or by education authorities—in support of schools that are not delivering for our young people as they should. This miserable little piece of legislation is just part of a—
Will the member take an intervention?
How am I doing for time, Presiding Officer?
You are actually well over time for your speech, but we are still slightly ahead of the timetable. If you wish to take a further intervention and respond to it, I will allow that.
Does the member agree that a school that has not had its follow-up inspection should not be cited? I think that the minister was referring to a school that has had an initial inspection, but not a follow-up inspection. We would have to base any evidence of a school not carrying out recommendations on a follow-up inspection, not on an initial inspection.
I take Rosemary Byrne's point. This miserable little bill would not address that situation, because a succession of failures is required before ministers will act under the new power.
You have one minute left.
In fact, I think I will conclude my remarks at that point.
I have listened to this morning's debate with considerable interest and thank members for taking part. I am surprised at some of the exaggerated language that has been used. Further, I suggest that the theory that the Tories are the champions of local democracy is about as plausible as the theory that Caligula's horse improved oratory in the Roman Senate.
Clearly, Robin Harper was not listening to or did not understand the point that I made during the discussion of the second group of amendments. There is a great range of qualificatory powers. If, between now and decision time, he wants me to take him through them, I will be happy to do so. We do not want an unfettered power. We are addressing a particular issue that we need to address and believe that we have done so in a proportionate way.
Why was no specific qualification on varying built into the bill?
A series of procedures must be gone through and there is a series of qualifications in the bill. I will explain them to the member later, if he so wishes.
It is clear that members of the Opposition parties do not know what they would do if, in the circumstances that the bill seeks to address, HMIE's recommendations had not been followed. In those rare circumstances, the Opposition parties would leave the Executive with no powers, because they misunderstand the fact that at present there is no power for ministers to intervene in those circumstances. That is the important point that Robert Brown emphasised. I agree that the bill makes a small change, but it is significant.
I thank the Education Committee for its comments and for the concerted way in which it approached the bill in its stage 1 report. We have taken account of many of the committee's recommendations and have accepted some of the convener's amendments and fully debated others. I appreciate the committee's detailed consideration at stage 2 and the amendments that were lodged.
At stage 2, we took the opportunity to clarify the fact that the trigger for the HMIE to refer a school or an authority to ministers would be used in circumstances only in which HMIE felt that the matter was of sufficient seriousness to be addressed. We also accepted that it should be made clear that a referral from HMIE to ministers should include the recommended actions that HMIE suggests, but should also specify the failure that the actions seek to address.
I should explain to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton that Disclosure Scotland has improved its performance in recent months. There was a period in which there were some difficulties and unacceptable delays, but ministers have taken careful account of that and I am pleased to say that those delays have been reduced. Further, the outstanding number of referrals to Disclosure Scotland has dropped significantly. If Lord James Douglas-Hamilton wishes, I can give him details of that later.
There was discussion at stage 2 about the "proper person" test that is to be applied to teachers and proprietors under part 2 of the bill. I want to reiterate what I said at that time. We are all keen to ensure that only people who are suitable to work with children work in our schools, whether they be teachers, janitors or catering staff. In that respect, the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003 applies equally to the independent sector and the public sector and provides safeguards to prevent persons who are unsuitable to work with children being able to do so.
The "proper person" standard referred to in part 2, which relates to the independent sector, is for much wider purposes than the standard of being suitable to work with children. It relates to whether people are proper people to be teachers or proprietors. The standard already exists, but we propose to take the additional power to specify in regulations the classes of people that are not considered proper to be teachers or proprietors. It is appropriate to examine the propriety of teachers in the private sector as, unlike those in the state sector, not all will have had their propriety checked by the General Teaching Council for Scotland. Similarly, the state sector has no proprietors, so it is appropriate to have a test for them that takes into account factors beyond child welfare.
The Executive also intends to issue guidance for independent schools that will set out how their obligations under the bill relate to their obligations under other legislation, such as the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003. It is important to emphasise those points and I welcome Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's remarks about that.
Concern has been expressed about whether powers to set conditions may be used unreasonably. We have taken those powers to allow ministers to act reasonably. They have been taken not to place additional burdens on new schools, but to assist in the registration process and with on-going regulation.
I reiterate my thanks to the Education Committee for its input and I thank the various organisations and individuals who played a part in shaping the bill. The bill gives us an opportunity to close a gap whereby authorities have no clear obligation to take on board HMIE's recommendations after an inspection. It gives ministers powers to direct education authorities to take action in response to HMIE's recommendations and it brings the legislation that covers independent schools up to date. The measure is worth commending to the Parliament.
I recommend that the Parliament support the bill and I hope that the motion will be passed at decision time.