Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill: Stage 3
We move now to stage 3 proceedings on the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill. I want first to make the usual announcement about the procedures that will be followed. First, we will deal with amendments to the bill, and then we will move to the debate on the motion to pass the bill. For the first part, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, SP bill 45A—the marshalled list containing all the amendments that have been selected for debate and the groupings that I have agreed.
In relation to amendments, the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes before the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for that division will then be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate, and a period of 30 seconds for all other divisions.
Section 1—Duty of Scottish Ministers and of education authorities to promote involvement of parents in school education etc.
Group 1 relates to parental involvement in pre-school education. Amendment 7, in the name of the Minister, is grouped with amendments 8, 27, 12, 14, 15 and 19.
The Executive amendments in this group are of one purpose: they seek to recognise the importance of involving the parents of children in pre-school education in a way that is proportionate and appropriate to the overall focus and aim of the bill.
The Education Committee took an interest in the area covered by this first group of amendments, when amendment 47 was agreed to at stage 2. That amendment extended the duty on Scottish ministers to promote parental involvement to cover the parents of children who attend pre-school publicly funded nurseries. I am grateful to Fiona Hyslop for raising the issue. We have considered it very carefully and feel that amendment 47 took the wrong approach. This is not really a matter for the Executive; arrangements that are much more local are required. Accordingly, amendment 7 now asks the Parliament, in effect, to take back amendment 47.
Similarly, the Executive will today ask colleagues in the Parliament to reject Fiona Hyslop's amendment 27, which seeks to take things a stage further and extend the duty to education authorities. In fairness, the new amendment 27 is much more relevant than the previous amendment 47, but we still feel that what it proposes is not the right way to proceed. It does not reflect what happens on the ground.
We are committed to joining up early years and primary school education to ensure that all children transfer smoothly from one sector to the other. To achieve that effectively, we must use the methods that are right for each sector. The bill has been designed with school education in mind and we do not believe that it is necessary to apply all the bill's provisions to the early years sector. They would not always be appropriate.
Parental involvement is already a significant feature of pre-school education—probably more so then than in the later stages of school—in that parents have strong and, in most cases, daily contact with the staff who are working with their children. The opportunity for parents to engage in their children's learning and to keep in touch with their children's development is much greater at this stage of education than it is later on. We therefore do not want the bill's provisions to be applied indiscriminately to pre-school provision.
However, we recognise the importance of contact between the primary and pre-school sectors. Therefore, we have lodged Executive amendment 14 to help to develop closer ties between primary schools and pre-school centres. Amendment 14 seeks to add to the functions of parent councils the promotion of contact between school parent forums and providers of nursery school education. That will build on the provision that the bill makes for councils to promote contact with parents of prospective pupils of a school. Amendment 14 is a useful amendment that reacts to the concerns that were expressed by Fiona Hyslop and the rest of the Education Committee.
The definition that we have used in the context of promoting contact is broader than that proposed by Fiona Hyslop because it includes the independent and voluntary sectors. I would argue that the promotion of contact between parents at local level is a more direct and beneficial way of promoting parental involvement than the approach that Fiona Hyslop advocated at stage 2 and the one that she proposes in amendment 27.
The approach that we are taking will be supported by statutory guidance. We will issue guidance to education authorities on the development of strategies for parental involvement. That will highlight the need for education authorities to consult early years providers when developing those strategies and to support parent councils in their promotion of contact with those providers.
In addition, the Executive already provides statutory guidance on the delivery of pre-school education that local authorities must take account of in meeting their legal duty to provide such education. That guidance is due to be redrafted, and we will take that opportunity to reflect the bill's provisions on the need to involve parents in pre-school education and to help them to support their children in the transition to primary school.
Ministers also issue care standards, which require early years education providers to work in partnership with parents. We will consider whether those standards need to be strengthened in the light of the bill. Similarly, we want to explore the scope that inspections offer to encourage promotion of parental involvement in the early years. The strong package of measures that is already in place, together with the new provisions on promoting contact between parents and providers that are contained in amendment 14, will create the proper balance and focus.
Amendments 12, 15 and 19 are consequential to the approach that I have outlined. They will ensure that parent councils notify interested parties of their function of promoting contact with providers of nursery education. I ask members to support amendment 7 and to resist amendment 27. I hope that Fiona Hyslop will recognise that we have responded appropriately and properly to the point that she made at stage 2 by not moving amendment 27.
I move amendment 7.
I will focus my remarks on amendments 7, 27 and 14. I am pleased that the Executive has responded to the Education Committee's demands that early years education be addressed. The Executive has proposed a three to 18 curriculum. Three-year-olds and four-year-olds attend nursery education that is provided by the state. There will be an anomaly in the bill unless we accept the arguments of the Scottish National Party and the committee on the need to address early years education.
A parent of a child who attends a nursery that is associated with a primary school will be encouraged by ministers and the local council to become involved in their child's education, but a parent of a three-year-old or a four-year-old who is in a stand-alone council nursery school will not receive such encouragement. There will be an imbalance in the bill unless members support amendment 27 and reject amendments 7 and 8.
We recognise that early intervention and support and early years education can allow youngsters to make a great start, but we know that the transition from nursery school to primary 1 can be highly problematic. If we acknowledge that parental involvement is a key factor in successful attainment for youngsters, it is important that we support such involvement. That is why, both for continuity purposes and so that there is equity in the rights of parents across the sector, it is vital that parental involvement in the education of three-year-olds and four-year-olds is recognised.
The effect of amendment 7 would be that Scottish ministers would have no duty to promote parental involvement in early years education. That is a highly questionable proposal, especially when the committee decided unanimously that the Executive should be responsible for promoting parental involvement in the education of children who attend publicly funded nursery schools. Amendment 27 is about imposing on councils a responsibility to promote parental involvement.
I have no problems with amendment 14. I am pleased that the minister has suggested that contact with the providers of nursery education should be promoted, but why is he happy to give the responsibility for establishing such contact to parent councils and parent forums when he is shirking his responsibility—and allowing councils to shirk their responsibility—to promote parental involvement? The two things are not mutually exclusive. We can build into the bill a recognition that early years education is a key factor in education and that parental involvement should be encouraged at all levels, and not only by the local authority.
I urge the chamber to reject amendments 7 and 8 and to support amendment 27, which would ensure that councils also have a responsibility in this area. I am pleased to support the minister on amendment 14, which provides for a useful arrangement for the promotion of parental involvement at the local level. We should not forget the big picture: the Executive should not be let off the hook, but should ensure that local authorities have a duty to promote parental involvement in early years education.
I support the case that Fiona Hyslop has just made. The minister has lodged a number of extremely useful amendments on parental involvement in pre-school education and we will support his amendments 12, 14, 15 and 19. Amendments 12 and 14 will give the parent council the function of promoting contact between primary schools and nurseries. We support and welcome that aim.
Unfortunately, the minister also lodged amendments 7 and 8 to delete provisions that place a duty on Scottish ministers to promote parental involvement in nursery schools. We do not support those amendments. The early years of a child's development are pivotal to his or her future development and we believe that ministers and parent councils should promote parental involvement in nursery schools.
We will support Fiona Hyslop's amendment 27, which provides for a duty on local authorities to promote the involvement of parents of children who attend local authority nursery schools. We urge the chamber to support amendment 27 for the reasons that I have set out.
If the bill is to reach beyond changing the structure of parental representation to encouraging the greater participation of parents in their children's learning, we will need to achieve a culture change in parental attitudes. That can best be effected by building parental involvement from early on. We should start with the parents of children in early years child care and education settings and continue with the parents of children in primary and secondary school years.
I welcome the concessions that the minister has made to the committee following the debates at stage 2 in adding contact with parents of pre-school children to the functions of parent councils, which Fiona Hyslop mentioned. However, the provision is considerably weaker than one that would place a duty on education authorities to promote the involvement of parents of prospective pupils. Surely education authorities are better placed and resourced to make contact with and inform such parents than parent councils would be. Fiona Hyslop's amendment 27 strengthens the Executive's amendment 14 and I urge the chamber to support it.
I speak in support of the minister's approach, which reflects the concerns that the committee raised on the need for parents of pre-school children to become more involved in their children's education. The problem with the way in which the committee amended the bill at stage 2 is that parents of children at publicly funded nursery schools, which are only one form of pre-school education, would be treated differently.
Obviously, in some local authority areas, large numbers of pupils are in school nursery classes, and I assume that their parents will be able to get involved in the parent forum for that school. We also have publicly funded nursery schools that disperse children to a number of primary schools and, in rural areas in particular, agreements are in place with the private and voluntary sectors for the delivery of pre-school provision. Amendment 27 will not encourage the parents of pupils in publicly funded nursery schools to become involved in the same way as other parents will be involved.
It is difficult to find a form of words that encompasses the parents of pupils in all the different forms of pre-school education, but the solution that the ministers have gone for is the most appropriate one.
I have listened with some care to the points that have been made in the debate. With great respect, the approach that has been taken was a little superficial, as it does not recognise the breadth of vision that is contained in the bill, the guidance that I spoke about earlier and the surrounding framework of educational structures.
I will make three points in reply to the debate. First, as Elaine Murray rightly mentioned, there is a relative narrowness in the definition that was used in the committee's original stage 2 amendment and in the amendment that Fiona Hyslop lodged for debate today. In the Executive amendments in the group, the situation is dealt with on a wider and more sophisticated basis.
Secondly, the Executive bows to no one in its support for early years education and input. We have done more than any Government before us to advance the cause of provision for early years education, which is at the heart of the approach that we are taking.
If that is so, why did the bill as introduced make no mention of nurseries?
The bill takes a structural approach and its objective is parental involvement. I have made it clear that, as part of the guidance that will be associated with the bill, a toolkit for effective, practical and non-bureaucratic involvement with nurseries and other pre-school providers will have prominence.
I accept the point that was made about three to 18 structures.
If the Executive's amendments are not agreed to, what sanctions will the Executive be able to deploy against parents who do not become involved when their children are at the pre-school stage?
It is not a question of sanctions; it is a question of there being a much more positive and dynamic approach to encouraging, enthusing and supporting parents in their involvement in the education of their children.
That brings me to an important point. We heard no detail about how the supporters of Fiona Hyslop's amendment 27 and the people who supported amendment 47 at stage 2 think that placing the suggested duty on the Scottish Executive or on local authorities will make a difference and add value to how parental involvement is talked about and operated in a way that goes beyond the Executive's proposed approach. Amendment 27 would merely tinker with the arrangements and misses the point about the centrality of involvement in early years education in the bill and the proposed guidance.
I do not want to lose sight of the consensual point. Members of all parties are concerned about the matter and accept the importance of links between primary schools in particular and the early years sector. The important point is how those links are made through an approach that is as non-bureaucratic as possible and which recognises the varied provision in the pre-school sector and addresses that effectively in a way that adds value to the overall position. We should not lose sight of those points in this slightly party-political debate. In that context I sustain the position I set out in my opening remarks and ask members to support amendment 7 and to disagree to amendment 27.
The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division. As this is the first division, there will be a five-minute suspension.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We will now proceed with the division.
For
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 68, Against 38, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 7 agreed to.
Amendment 8 moved—[Robert Brown].
The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 68, Against 38, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendment 27 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].
The question is, that amendment 27, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 38, Against 68, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 27 disagreed to.
Group 2 is on a national parents forum. Amendment 1, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 1 is fairly straightforward. It recognises that there will be a national parents forum to represent the views of parents, and it proposes that it should be the duty of ministers to consult that forum. Section 1 is a high-level, strategic element of the bill and sets out the duties of ministers. It is the appropriate place to recognise that there will be a national parents forum. When a similar amendment was lodged at stage 2, the Education Committee was split 4:4, and the convener's casting vote led to its being disagreed to. I hope that the Executive has had time to reflect on the appropriateness of recognising that there will be a national parents forum and that it is willing to support the amendment.
When the committee took evidence at stage 1, it was struck by the need for a national body. I pay tribute to the work of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council and the Scottish School Board Association, which have represented the views of parents very well and have been influential in the progress of the bill, adding their opinion about what would be appropriate.
We do not want to be prescriptive about the bill, nor do we want the minister to have a statutory responsibility for establishing a national parents forum. Since the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 was passed, we have had to be increasingly careful about the bodies that ministers establish under the law. In this case, were the ministers to establish a national representative body for parents, that body would not necessarily attract charitable status. A national parent organisation such as the Scottish Parent Teacher Council can raise charitable funds without being taxed in a way that affects the organisation adversely. That is one of the reasons why we agree with the minister. The national parents forum should not be established by the ministers. However, if the bill stipulates that ministers should consult any national body that is established at the grass roots by the parent forums and parent councils, that would be one way of ensuring that such a national body is recognised.
The Parliament could send the signal that it is in favour of such a national body being representative of grass-roots organisations in schools and communities throughout Scotland. That would also be a signal that we do not want to follow the Scottish Consumer Council's model, which would provide for an Ofcom for parents. Amendment 1 is simple; in that spirit, I hope that the Executive has had more time to consider the issue and that it will be able to support the amendment.
I move amendment 1.
Amendment 1 creates a duty on Scottish ministers to consult a national parents organisation as part of their actions to promote parental involvement. That is very much in keeping with the Conservatives' view that parents and their representatives should have a substantial input to the system. We believe that parents, not the Government, should shape the way in which the system works. The amendment is therefore worthy of our support.
As Fiona Hyslop mentioned, there was no majority in favour of the proposal in amendment 1 when it came before the Education Committee at stage 2. Therefore, I exercised a casting vote in the time-honoured way in which a convener should. It is not necessary to have in the bill the provisions contained in amendment 1. I cannot envisage any circumstance in which an education minister would not consult a national body that was set up by parent forums or parent councils. However, there is a danger that, if we put a duty to do so in the bill, that could allow ministers to claim that they had discharged their duty to consult parents simply by consulting the national body.
We should not be prescriptive about the sort of body parents that may wish to set up, as they may not wish to set up a national body or may wish to set up regional bodies. However, if we were to agree to amendment 1, we might be prescribing to parents how they should set up representative bodies for themselves.
Amendment 1 is not necessary and may be unhelpful at this stage.
In the stage 2 debate on a similar amendment, the minister accepted the need to establish
"a strong national body to represent parents' interests".—[Official Report, Education Committee, Wednesday 29 March 2006; c 3121.]
He also accepted that such a body would be a key consultee on education matters, but denied that making such provision in the bill would add anything.
The minister also asked why the body should be singled out as a consultee above trade union and other interests. It seems fairly obvious to me why the bill should mention a national parents body. After all, it is a parental involvement bill. It aims to widen and deepen parental involvement in schools and in the development of education policy, so it is entirely appropriate that special mention should be made of the role of a national parents body. Indeed, the failure to make such a reference would surely be a serious omission from the bill—in some eyes, it would be a fundamental flaw.
I urge Parliament to agree to amendment 1.
Although I agree that it is essential that ministers consult any national parents body, the new subsection that amendment 1 proposes could have an unintended consequence. Would every bill that went through the Parliament in future need to specify who would have to be consulted? If so, would ministers need to bother to consult any agency other than those that were specified in statute?
I agree entirely with the comments that Iain Smith and Elaine Murray made; they hit the nail right on the head. There is no argument about the fact that ministers consult, and will continue to consult, national parents organisations—and, indeed, many other bodies—in connection with education issues.
A statutory duty is a significant matter, and when we legislate, we should be careful to ensure that additional duties add value to what we are trying to enshrine in legislation. The Executive has made it clear that it is fully supportive of the principle of establishing a strong national body, but it is not up to us to determine the format of that body. The body must be led by local parents, in that it must emanate from parents groups throughout Scotland and build on the foundation that has been laid by the existing national bodies.
However, that is different from saying that there should be a statutory duty on ministers to consult such a body. The issue is what would happen if there was no such statutory duty, and the reality is that consultation would take place. Therefore, amendment 1 would add nothing to the way in which consultation will operate. We are arguing about nothing of substance. The central point is that we envisage that, once the bill has been passed and the implementation arrangements have begun, a new national body will emerge. That body will be parent led, not led by the Executive, and ministers will consult the body, as has always been the practice.
On Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's comments, it is worth noting that the legislation that set up school boards does not contain any such obligation. Lord James might even have been involved in that legislation as a minister, so there is a dichotomy in the arguments that he advances. It has not been the normal arrangement to have such details in bills, although I accept that there are exceptions.
I ask the Parliament to reject Fiona Hyslop's amendment 1.
I ask the minister to read the amendment, which refers to
"any national parents' organisation established by Parent Forums or Parent Councils".
That is precisely because we want the organisation to be led by people at the grass roots. Perhaps one of the reasons why the Scottish School Board Association has not been able to exercise the powers that it could have exercised is that they were not originally legislated for. The minister's arguments are defeated in that regard.
At stage 1, we identified that one of the biggest holes in the bill was the lack of a reference to a national body for parents. I suspect that the only reason why that cannot be included in the bill is that to do so would mean that the body would not attract charitable status. That is an anomaly, which deserves recognition. It is important that ministers have duties and responsibilities to consult parents under a parental involvement bill.
In response to Elaine Murray, I point out that we pass legislation all the time that says which organisations ministers have a duty to consult. Jim Wallace made such a proposal in the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill, specifically saying that students should be consulted on the introduction of variable fees. Yet, having consulted students, the Executive will tomorrow propose legislation to introduce variable top-up fees in Scotland. I am sorry to say that, despite such a provision to consult, the Executive has disregarded the views of students.
The principle is the same, however. In other pieces of legislation, there are duties on ministers to consult different organisations. The effect of amendment 1 is simply that it would recognise the importance of a national body for parents, which is what parents told us they need.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 36, Against 62, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Section 2—Strategies for parental involvement
Group 3 is on equal opportunities, barriers to parental involvement etc. Amendment 9, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2, 17 and 24.
At stage 2, Frank McAveety and Ken Macintosh both lodged amendments that were designed to demonstrate the Parliament's commitment to equal opportunities in the bill. The Executive is fully committed to the promotion of equal opportunities in our schools, and I undertook to consider further how that could be brought into the bill more effectively. Of course, there is also a wider framework of existing equal opportunities legislation. Amendments 9, 17 and 24 are the result of those considerations.
We have picked up Frank McAveety's proposal and the wording of amendment 9 says that the education authority's strategy for parental involvement should
"have regard to how that strategy will promote equal opportunities."
Section 2 seems the most logical and effective place for that duty and it is helpful to make explicit what is already implicit in other equal opportunities legislation.
Amendment 17 ensures that the head teacher's annual report to the parent council has regard to "equal opportunity requirements", which will allow the parent council to know how those are being worked out at a practical, local level in their school without making an undue bureaucratic imposition on the local authority.
Amendment 24 defines the terms "equal opportunities" and "equal opportunity requirements" with reference to their meaning in the Scotland Act 1998.
In amendment 2, Fiona Hyslop raises important issues—the factors that may discourage parents from becoming involved in their children's education and school—about which we had an interesting exchange at stage 2. We know that there is a variety of reasons why some parents find involvement difficult. Their own experience of school might have been negative and might have undermined their confidence in engaging with a school. Some parents' first language is not English and home-school communications issues might arise from that and other matters. Some families might experience practical difficulties with domestic or care arrangements.
For those and other reasons, I accept that education authorities and schools must take a strategic approach to involving parents in their children's education and learning. The bill fully allows for that. Sections 1 and 2 place appropriate duties on education authorities actively to promote parental involvement in its widest sense and to have a strategy in place to develop parental involvement.
In practical terms, education authorities will in the process of meeting their duties pick up on and take account of the factors to which Fiona Hyslop's amendment refers, in a way that it is hoped will encourage parental involvement. There is no need to headline that in the bill as amendment 2 would. A minor point is that the amendment's wording might be seen as a little negative and contrary to the bill's positive approach to encouraging parental involvement.
As I have said, amendment 9 requires education authorities to have regard to how their strategies for parental involvement will promote equal opportunities. That is the alternative way forward. We also amended the bill at stage 2 to require ministers to issue guidance on education authorities' strategies for parental involvement. We will ensure that that guidance addresses the need for strategies to take account of all the factors, including those to which Fiona Hyslop's amendment refers, that discourage or inhibit parental involvement. They will include factors that arise from disadvantage or inequality.
We have the proper structure to take forward and I hope that Fiona Hyslop accepts the reality of that. Therefore, I ask members to support amendments 9, 17 and 24 and to resist amendment 2.
I move amendment 9.
The group of amendments highlights the fact that the bill is about two issues: the representative forum for school management support and parents' involvement in their children's education. Barriers to involvement apply to both elements. The SNP supports the amendments on equal opportunities. Perhaps amendment 2 is an attempt to broaden that out and to recognise that, for inclusiveness, we must address equal opportunities in individual children's education as well as in representation.
It is clear that we must ensure that education authorities not only make sure that parent councils are established but are far more actively involved in identifying the barriers to parental involvement. Those barriers will change and will be different in rural areas, urban areas, city centres and other parts of Scotland with different experiences. For example, the increase in Polish migrants to the Inverness area will pose key challenges for the local council and education authority.
Children in Scotland supports amendment 2 and thinks that it would be a useful addition to the bill. The amendment would prevent councils from just ticking a box to say that a parent council has been established and would give them an active role in identifying the factors that discourage parental involvement. The amendment has a broader scope than the equal opportunities provisions, although they are not mutually exclusive. The amendment would be a useful addition that underpins the fact that there is more to the bill than the mechanistic establishment of parent councils to replace school boards.
We support all the amendments in the group, particularly Fiona Hyslop's amendment 2, which would place a duty on education authorities to identify the factors that discourage parental involvement. That amendment is to be welcomed, as identifying areas for improvement would inform and focus an education authority's approach to improving the situation and should lead to more effective and measurable progress.
As the minister said, I was keen at stage 2 to make an amendment that would place a duty on education authorities to monitor the representation of parents on parent councils. That amendment was designed to encourage positive action to promote the involvement of parents from minority ethnic communities in representative bodies.
As Fiona Hyslop's amendment 2 recognises, a number of obstacles can work against the representation of parents from particular backgrounds on school boards and, in future, on school councils. It is easy to imagine how such councils could become dominated by white, middle-class parents and, potentially, even work against the interests of the more vulnerable pupils in our schools and their families. I am pleased that the Executive and the minister have recognised that and have agreed with the principle behind my amendment and, indeed, the principle behind Fiona Hyslop's amendment.
I accept the Executive's argument that the bill should not be overly prescriptive or descriptive but should promote a general duty to have regard to the promotion of equal opportunities in preparing a strategy for parental involvement. Amendment 17 places a further duty on head teachers to report progress on those matters. We will come to that issue later.
As the minister suggested, Fiona Hyslop's amendment 2 puts in rather negative language the idea of promoting parental involvement, which lies at the heart of the bill but in positive terms. The amendment is well meant, but I urge members not to support it. I also urge members to vote for amendment 9.
The issue has been fully debated, but I want to say one thing in response to what has been said. Nothing could be further from the truth than Fiona Hyslop's comment about
"the mechanistic establishment of parent councils".
That idea comes from reading sections on setting up the system without having proper regard to the strategy, which is a key part of the bill. That strategy will give life, structure, innovation and dynamism to our important objectives.
I am sure that all members think that the aim of widening parental involvement is central to the bill. The divide on the issue that we are discussing should not disguise that unanimity. As a result of trying to cover all eventualities, we would run the risk of bringing the law of unintended consequences into effect. It is far better to speak about such matters in more general terms. The direction of travel has been clearly set out, guidance will deal with the details and the end result should take on board all the issues that members throughout the chamber are concerned about.
I ask members to disagree to amendment 2.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 33, Against 58, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 2 disagreed to.
Group 4 is on the specific nature of parental involvement. Amendment 3, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, is grouped with amendments 4, 5 and 6.
This group of amendments hinges on one argument—that the legislation must emphasise that it is not just about the representation of parents on something that replaces school boards. Many of us have been quite sceptical about the bill and if it is to mean anything, it must encourage the promotion of parental involvement in a child's education.
Amendments 3, 4, 5 and 6 would make it explicit to anybody who was reading the bill or executing it through council strategies that it is about promoting parents' involvement in their children's education as well as in the school generally.
Although it is clear that the council has a duty under section 1(2) to promote parents' involvement in the education that a school provides "to that pupil" and "to its pupils generally", that is not referred to again after section 1. It is important to encourage councils to ensure that, in any strategy that they put forward, parental involvement is about involvement in the children's education individually as well as in the structural, mechanistic—I will use the word "mechanistic"—establishment of a parent council.
The vote that took place right at the beginning of the debate, about early years education, reinforces my point. Some of the arguments that were put against the SNP's trying to promote early years education as being covered by the bill were concerns about how parents would involve themselves in the parent forum. That could not be further from the point at argument. The point at argument in relation to early years education is that, if we can encourage parents to become involved and support their children's education in the earliest years, they are more likely to stay involved. That is a test of where the Government is coming from on this. We must reinforce the point that the bill is about not just replacing school boards but parental involvement in education. We must ensure that that is explicit in other parts of the bill, not just in section 1.
I have agreed that much of the regulation should be in guidance, rather than in the bill. There has been good will from members around the chamber to allow the Executive to keep the bill free from too many cumbersome additions. However, there are certain principles that must be embedded in the bill if it is to work. It is in that spirit that these amendments have been lodged.
I move amendment 3.
We support Fiona Hyslop's amendments. We have argued consistently that it is crucial to support parents in getting involved in their children's education, helping with homework and providing encouragement. We believe that that is just as important as encouraging parents to get involved in the community life and governance of the school. The amendments in the group would help to ensure that the bill's provisions encourage parental involvement for the purpose of securing greater educational attainment by pupils and so are worthy of our support.
The long title of the bill begins:
"An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make further provision for the involvement of parents in their children's education and in school education generally".
I do not think that it is necessary to spell that out in full every time that the word "involvement" appears. We should ensure that legislation is kept simple, and the wording of the long title makes it perfectly clear what the bill means by "involvement".
Section 1 states:
"It is the duty of an education authority to promote the involvement of the parents … in the education provided … to that pupil".
All that Fiona Hyslop's amendments would do is to add cumbersome phraseology; they would not add to the spirit of the bill in any way.
I support Fiona Hyslop's amendments. It is important to have the proposed wording in the bill. We do not want this parental involvement bill to end up being a bill that is about parents going into schools, helping out where they can and doing fundraising—we want it to be about much more than that. Having the suggested emphasis in the bill is important. We want parents to take a real interest in their children's education, to be encouraged to do so and not to feel intimidated when they go into a school and ask how it teaches maths or does this or that. Indeed, we want to encourage parents to learn how to do homework with their children and all the other things that are important in education.
Although I have the greatest respect for Rosemary Byrne, I think that her good intentions have overtaken her good judgment on this. We should be trying to make any bills that the Parliament passes as simple to read as possible. They should be in very clear English. Well-intentioned though Fiona Hyslop's amendments may be, they would not make anything in the bill clearer and certainly would not improve the role of parents in schools.
Margo MacDonald is an experienced legislator and her response had it in one. The principal sections of the bill—sections 1 and 2—contain very powerful words. As is the case with many other bills, sections 1 and 2 are the principal sections and they state the position very precisely. Section 1(2) makes it clear that
"It is the duty of an education authority to promote the involvement of the parents of a pupil … to that pupil, and … to its pupils generally."
Those are very specific and powerful words.
Notwithstanding Fiona Hyslop's attempts to amend it, section 2 specifically refers to the strategy for dealing with the duties under section 1, including the bit to which I have referred already. Quite simply, amendments 3, 4, 5 and 6 are unnecessary. They repeat what has already been provided for in the bill and, to be quite honest, I am a little bit disappointed that the amendments have come back today because we explained clearly at stage 2 that the strategy must cover such things. To take Fiona Hyslop's point, although people will not read the bill as a routine bedtime exercise, it is important that it be elegant and simple. If it is cluttered up with phrases such as those in the amendments, which add nothing of value, we will not make any advances. Amendments 5 and 6 relate to school development and the advice and information that head teachers and staff have to give to parent councils and are unnecessary because sections 1 and 2 provide for the overarching requirement to involve parents in their child's education and in the general education that is provided at the school.
Parliament should resist amendments 3, 4, 5 and 6 on the principle that we should not add to the complexity of legislation if that is not necessary.
The amendments are hardly complex; they are fairly easy to read. If Parliament rejects them, it rejects parental involvement in children's education, in the council strategy, in the school development plan and in discussion among teachers, head teachers and parents on attitudes towards education. They are specific and practical measures for spelling out that the bill is not just about parental involvement and representation on school boards; it is about the meat and drink of education, which is the learning experience. We are trying to embed the learning experience in the legislation. The approach is fairly simple and straightforward and I press amendment 3.
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 39, Against 65, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 disagreed to.
Amendment 4 not moved.
Group 5 is on minor and consequential amendments, Amendment 10, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 11, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 26.
As you said, Presiding Officer, all the amendments in the group are technical or consequential. Most of them arise out of amendments accepted at stage 2. Those relating to section 18 reflect further consideration of commencement issues.
Amendment 10 makes it clear that, consistent with other provisions in the bill, the duty on education authorities to have regard to the views of pupils in attendance at schools in their area applies only to those pupils in attendance at public schools rather than all schools. Amendment 11 brings the wording of the provision in section 6(7)(a)(iia) into line with similar provisions elsewhere in the bill. Amendment 18 seeks to deal with the provision in section 6(7)(a)(iia)—that a parent council should intimate the fact of its establishment to the pupils in attendance.
Amendment 21 ensures that the bill is structured so as to reflect the intended repeal of different parts of the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 at different times. Amendment 22 is similar but refers to the termination of the appointment of a clerk to a school board once the school board ceases to exist. Amendment 23 provides that, unless the context otherwise requires, expressions in the bill have the same meaning as in section 135 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. The amendment broadens the current wording to include the definition of "primary school". Amendment 25 repeals section 74 of the Self-Governing Schools etc (Scotland) Act 1989, which provided for requirements, under section 87A of the 1980 act, to advertise principal teacher posts and, under section 87B of the 1980 act, relating to the selection of teachers. Amendment 26 repeals section 50 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003.
Essentially, the amendments will tidy up the statute book.
I move amendment 10.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Section 3—Ambitions and objectives for a school
Amendment 5 not moved.
Section 6—Scheme for establishment of a Parent Council
Amendments 11 and 12 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 7—Restrictions as to composition of a Parent Council
Group 6 is on the chair of a parent council. Amendment 13, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 20.
When Fiona Hyslop at stage 2 moved an amendment similar to amendment 13, I said that I was attracted to it but wanted time to consider whether wider issues needed to be taken into account, such as what would happen if the child of the chair left the school during the course of the term. Amendment 13 highlights the importance of ensuring that the lead officers of the parent council have an active and close relationship with members of the parent forum. The amendment ensures that only a person who is the parent of a child at the school can chair the school's parent council. I am sure that that is right and that Fiona Hyslop's stage 2 amendment was entirely correct.
Amendment 20 provides similar provisions for combined parent councils and brings those into line with those for single parent councils. Obviously, a parent council needs to keep in touch with parents.
I move amendment 13.
I put on record our support for those parents who have chaired school boards and parent-teacher councils in the past. They served their children and the community well and we should recognise that fact.
I should be grateful for small mercies, given that members seem to have voted against all my other amendments today. I am pleased that the Executive listened to the arguments that I made at stage 2 and lodged an amendment similar to the one that I previously proposed. We should recall that the reason for such a provision is that, despite the good will and good efforts of all involved, circumstances may arise in which co-opted members who are parents of former pupils might overstay their welcome by continuing to chair the parent council. It is important that we keep parent councils live and fresh by requiring that only parents whose children attend the school can be given the responsibility of chairing the parent council. I am pleased that the Executive has acknowledged that by lodging amendment 13.
I will allow a brief contribution from James Douglas-Hamilton.
In one sentence, the minister's response to Fiona Hyslop's stage 2 amendment will ensure that parental representation remains strong.
Does the minister require to sum up?
No.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Section 8—Functions of a Parent Council
Group 7 is on the functions of a parent council. Amendment 28, in the name of James Douglas-Hamilton, is grouped with amendments 32 and 29.
Amendment 28 is supported by the Scottish School Board Association. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that parent councils are to have regular contact with teachers at the school, in the interests of promoting parental involvement. The parent council should promote contact between management, teachers, parents, pupils and the local community for the benefit of children's well-being and attainment.
I will also support amendment 32, in the name of Phil Gallie, which is based on the existing provision in section 9(2) of the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 that gives boards the right to approve spending on teaching materials. Amendment 32 would make that provision more specific, in that it would apply to materials relating to sex and relationships education. The amendment would therefore give parents appropriate influence over of how such a sensitive subject is taught to their children.
Amendment 29, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, is also worthy of support. Its purpose is to augment the quality of parental involvement by giving parent councils the right to make representations on any appropriate matter to the local authority and other public bodies, not including the police, the fire service, the health board or Scottish Enterprise. The amendment would help to keep the school a central part of the community.
I move amendment 28.
In last week's debate on human rights, a new word was mentioned in the chamber—responsibility. There was particular emphasis on the responsibility of parents for their children. I recognise that the state also has a responsibility to our children. The state protects children in health and sexual matters by setting in statute 16 as the age of consent.
I believe that the bill should leave parents with the responsibilities that they currently have under the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988, which it effectively replaces. Amendment 32 in my name upholds the right of parents to determine what material is fit for production in respect of sex education and education on drugs for their children in schools.
In advancing my argument for giving parents a say, I draw members' attention to the national health guidelines for teaching in schools. I point to the page that determines the guidelines for those in the 11-to-14 age bracket. I will not read out all the items, as that would be offensive, but I will give members a taste. The document refers to
"Use of sexual toys eg vibrators or other items … Sadism and/or masochism—the use of pain … Dressing up—tying up … Multiple partner at one time—ie more than 2 people".
I suggest that it is wrong to put those matters before children who are aged between 11 and 14. However, that is not for me to judge—I believe that it is for every parent to judge. The amendment that I have lodged would allow parents to have a say. I recommend that all members should examine the national guidelines. I believe that they are inappropriate and that parents have a right to judge. I ask members to support amendment 32.
Amendment 29 is in line with the position that was adopted by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities at stage 1. This is the first time that we have had an opportunity to debate, to legislate on and to vote on the matter. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that the role of parent councils is not restricted to the life and circumstances of the school but relates to wider community planning and strategic issues, such as transport and the school's surrounding environment. If we believe that schools should be at the heart of the community, we should agree with COSLA and support the amendment, to ensure that schools can contribute and be consulted on issues that touch on them.
I support amendment 28, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. Unless we vote for the amendment, there will be no mention of teachers in the bill. There is an acknowledgement of the role of head teachers and parents, but teachers and their connection with pupils should also be supported.
I think that, with amendment 32, Phil Gallie is hijacking the bill. The amendment is a very late contribution and is misplaced. If he had paid any attention to the contributions that have been made by parents organisations and by the Education Committee, he would know that the matters to which the amendment refers will be part and parcel of consultation on and discussion of parental involvement in the very educational issues about which I have argued all afternoon. The framework of the legislation allows for that.
Why do I think that Phil Gallie is wrong? His arguments are misplaced in a number of respects. He says that amendment 32 replicates the provisions of the 1988 act. If he had looked at that act, he would know that it does not. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton was also incorrect in saying that. The 1988 act gives schools boards authority over spending. Amendment 32 is not about spending, but about approval. Phil Gallie says that it is about ensuring that parents have a say, but in fact it is about ensuring that they have a veto. Why should it end with sex and drugs? Why should the amendment not extend to religion? It could be a charter for establishing creationist schools. If a member comes late to a piece of legislation, they should think through the content and technical details of the amendment that they lodge, rather than going for headlines and seeking to hijack the bill. Some of us have taken a lot of time and put in a lot of effort to ensure that parents have meaningful involvement in their children's education. On that basis, I will support amendments 29 and 28 but reject amendment 32.
I will concentrate on amendment 32, which I urge members to reject.
In Scottish legislation, we already have sufficient provision to ensure that parents are adequately consulted on matters of this nature. The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 made that a requirement and the national guidance that was issued on sex education in schools specifically says that parents should be consulted on these matters. It is absolutely right that that should happen, but it is absolutely wrong that parents should have a veto, whether collectively or through a small group that might take over a school board in order to push its agenda. That would not be an acceptable way forward.
In particular, the approach that is suggested would be wrong because it ignores the issue of who education is for. The education that we are talking about delivering is not for the parents; it is for the children. It is supposed to ensure that children can make informed choices, subject to their being the appropriate age, based on educational materials that are appropriate to their level of understanding. The idea that children should be denied appropriate educational materials because a small minority of parents think that they should not have access to them is dangerous and will put at risk many children who are not at risk at present. We have sensible provisions for dealing with these matters and we do not want to bring in rules that are not sensible and that would allow a small minority of parents to veto the important sex and drugs education programmes that are available to our children in our schools.
I also want to speak briefly on amendment 32. The position that we have heard from the Conservatives today, which is that parents should be given the power of control over material relating to sexual health and drugs education, is familiar. However, although I am not surprised that it has been raised, I am quite astonished at the fact that the amendment is as blunt as it is. If Phil Gallie were to propose that parent councils should ascertain the views of the parents, under section 8(e), or promote contact and communication on these issues, that would be fine—discussion of these issues would be positive. However, the simple veto that is included in the amendment, without caveats, constraints or controls, is another matter entirely.
Phil Gallie talked about human rights, yet there is nothing in the amendment that would prevent the infringement of the human rights of young people to their education. Further, he does himself no favours by proposing the amendment in a speech that implied that wildly inappropriate material is circulating freely in schools. That is simply not the case. If Mr Gallie has an opportunity to respond to what has been said about the amendment, I would like him to say whether there is anything in the amendment that would prevent it from being used as a charter for the worst kind of keep-the-clause bigotry.
I, too, oppose the amendment in the name of Phil Gallie, which appears to be nothing more than an opportunistic attempt to create some lurid tabloid headlines—a kind of revisiting of the section 2A debate. Mr Gallie appears to imply that, if left to their own devices, teachers will peddle inappropriate sex and drugs propaganda to our children. Such notions do not deserve to be given any house room. Promoting moral and healthy behaviour will naturally be something that schools and parent councils will be anxious to get right and they should be left to get on with it without interference from would-be moral majoritarians. I trust that the Parliament will knock this nasty little amendment on its head.
I recognise the point behind amendment 28, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, which is to do with the importance of contact between parents and the managers and teachers of a school. However, once again, the amendment is unnecessary. As section 8 sets out the whole range of players with whom a parent council should promote contact, it is unnecessary for the bill to refer expressly to the school's management or teachers in that regard. The bill enables the parent council to promote contact with parents, the head teacher and his or her staff, pupils and others with an interest in school education. That process will be led by the parent council and, indeed, will prove important to its effective functioning. As a result, the bill's present reference to "the school" is appropriate and proportionate, and amendment 28 adds nothing to the provisions.
Much has been said about the amendment in the name of Phil Gallie, which Adam Ingram rightly characterised as "this nasty little amendment". Mr Ingram is not the sort of chap who gets terribly excited during debates, but he certainly got carried away with his references to lurid headlines. He hit the nail right on the head. I believe that giving parent councils the function of approving materials used by the school to promote education in sexual health, drugs or any other area, which is what Phil Gallie seeks to do, is not something that most parents want. Indeed, consultation on the bill showed that very few parents wanted control over a school's spending or teaching materials, although they wanted to be consulted where appropriate.
It is quite disingenuous of Mr Gallie to say that amendment 32 simply follows the wording of provisions in the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988. As other members have pointed out, that is simply not the case. Furthermore, like Patrick Harvie, I totally refute the notion that wildly inappropriate materials are circulating in our schools and corrupting our children's morals.
Accepting amendment 32 would lead to the introduction of inappropriate and unwanted procedures for approving educational materials and would cause confusion over whether the head teacher or the parent council had the final say on the use of materials. Indeed, it might seriously complicate the work of schools, particularly secondary schools, where sex education and associated issues are taught right across the curriculum in, for example, biology, personal and social education and religious and moral education.
As Iain Smith and other members have made clear, parents and carers already have a means of making their views known. In developing and revising their health education programmes, local authorities and schools are expected to consult parents, carers and the wider community. Moreover, schools are expected to work in partnership with parents and put in place arrangements to allow parents to raise concerns. Although most parents or carers are happy to let their child take part in the school's sex education programme, in some exceptional cases a parent or carer might prefer to deal with that aspect of their child's education at home. That is their human right. However, it is not right to impose that view on everyone else. I should also point out that the child's views must also be taken into account in reaching any decision.
Parents have other means of raising their concerns on matters such as sexual health or drugs education materials. For example, the parent council itself can raise such matters with the head teacher and the education authority and, if it is not content with the response, with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education.
I echo the concerns that Fiona Hyslop expressed in her excellent contribution about members attempting to introduce such substantial—and, to some extent, irrelevant—amendments at stage 3. Such actions are a total denial of the Parliament's consultative processes. If Phil Gallie had truly been serious about influencing the bill, he would have lodged an amendment at stage 2 for proper consideration by the committee. Amendment 32 suggests that there is a problem where none exists—
If the minister feels that it is inappropriate to introduce a whole raft of new material at stage 3, he must also feel that it was inappropriate for the Scottish Executive to import the provisions on landlord registration in exactly the same way.
I am talking about the committee consideration of this bill. As I have said, with amendment 32, Phil Gallie seeks to suggest that there is a problem in this matter. However, no such problem exists or provision to deal with it has been worked through. As provision that suits all parents' needs has indeed been made, the Parliament should not agree to this nasty little amendment.
On amendment 29, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, I acknowledge that there are certain non-educational issues in which parents may have an interest and on which they must have the opportunity to make their voice heard. However, as I have pointed out, a parent council can report parents' concerns on any issue to the head teacher, the education authority or anyone else whom the council considers appropriate. I feel that amendment 29 affects the central position of education in the legislation. Although people can raise other issues through the parent council, the council's primary purpose is to deal with educational issues. As a result, there is no need for the bill to highlight representation on non-educational matters any more than it does already.
Amendment 32 has caused us to bypass other subjects but, on amendment 29 specifically, how would a parent council make representation on child protection issues to, for example, a health authority? Health authorities are not mentioned in the bill. Would the parent council have to do that via the local authority? If amendment 29 were accepted, the parent council could make direct representation to the relevant authority.
That does not need to go in the bill in the way that amendment 29 suggests. Section 8(1)(a) and section 8(2)(c), in particular, give the parent council the ability to make representations to whomsoever it chooses. Things can work extremely well without having to be spelled out as in amendment 29.
The bill has the balance right on the function of the parent council. I therefore urge members to resist amendments 28, 29 and 32.
I will be brief. The minister has been grossly unfair to my friend Phil Gallie. The minister is entirely incorrect. Section 9(1) of the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 says:
"Every education authority shall, in every financial year, make available to the headteacher of every school in their area such funds as they think necessary for the purchase of books and other teaching materials for the school, and for such other purposes as they think fit."
Section 9(2) says:
"The headteacher—
(a) shall from time to time make proposals to the School Board as to how the funds provided under this section should be spent; and
(b) shall not spend funds on any proposal unless it is approved by the Board."
If the minister submits to this Parliament that the position is all right at present, I submit to him that that is because parents have been given powers and rights under the 1988 act. The minister is trying to sweep those powers and rights away. For that reason, we think that his opposition to Phil Gallie this afternoon and his comments on amendment 32 are unworthy of any minister of the Crown. The minister's comments should be rejected.
The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division. Members who wish to support amendment 28 should press their yes buttons.
I say to Alex Neil that it is his request-to-speak button that he has pressed. [Laughter.]
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Abstentions
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 36, Against 65, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 28 disagreed to.
Amendment 32 moved—[Phil Gallie].
The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 14, Against 89, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 32 disagreed to.
Amendment 14 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Amendment 29 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].
The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 39, Against 64, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 29 disagreed to.
Amendment 15 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 11—Duties of education authority to a Parent Council etc
Amendment 6 not moved.
Group 8 is on the duty of the head teacher to give advice to a parent council. Amendment 16, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.
Although the debate on amendment 16, which seeks to amend section 11, will not be as exciting as the debate that we have just had on the amendments to section 8, section 11 is important. We have lodged amendment 16 to clarify the role that head teachers can play in offering advice to parent councils, a matter on which Dr Jean Turner prompted discussion at stage 2. I am glad that the committee allowed me to consider the matter further.
We want the head teacher and the parent council to work together closely. That is why the bill will place on head teachers a duty to attend, or to be represented at, council meetings. Head teachers will also have the right to attend those meetings. Such attendance will allow the head teacher to take part in council discussions and to offer advice and information on what is being done at the school to promote parental involvement.
In response to a number of requests, amendment 16 seeks to extend that provision by requiring the head teacher to give advice on other matters that fall within their area of responsibility, including all aspects of the work of the school, such as matters that relate to the school curriculum and policies on uniform or discipline. If an issue fell outwith the head teacher's area of responsibility, the council would be able to raise it with the education authority. We want to avoid a conflict of interest in the giving of advice. The idea that the head teacher will act as an adviser to the parent council is important, so we are pleased to be able to respond to the proposal that Jean Turner made at stage 2.
I move amendment 16.
I thank the minister for taking on board the essence of the amendment that I lodged at stage 2.
East Dunbartonshire Council's school board forum and its education and cultural services committee have been following the bill's progress closely. They thought that the bill would be enhanced if the proposal that the head teacher should be appointed as an adviser to the parent council were accepted. Amendment 16 will mean that parents can seek guidance, when that is appropriate. We may all have our own specialties, but we are not education specialists, so it will be good for parent councils to be able to receive advice from the head teacher. I thank the minister for taking on board that suggestion.
I supported Jean Turner at stage 2 and am pleased that the minister has responded positively to the suggestion that she made. That is a good example of responsiveness and of the ability of the Parliament's committees to ensure that, when we pass legislation, the views of people who work in the field are reflected in our legislation in a practical way.
Amendment 16 will allow the key educational role of head teachers to be recognised. They are not just managers of our schools, even though the increasing bureaucratic burden may make them feel as if that is what they are. Amendment 16 will help to reinforce the point that they are educational leaders by allowing them to act as advisers to parent councils.
I am 100 per cent supportive of amendment 16, but can the minister enlighten me as to whether it will have a knock-on effect on the contract of employment for head teachers? Has any thought been given to that?
Dr Jean Turner is to be congratulated on lodging the original amendment to which the minister has responded today with amendment 16. The solution will undoubtedly consolidate the working relationship between parents, schools and local authorities. We are grateful to Dr Turner for highlighting an important issue.
I say to Margo MacDonald that we have looked at the contract of employment for head teachers and I think that I am right in saying that the phraseology in the contract is fairly similar to that which we have put in the bill. When we looked at the matter previously, we took the view that a head teacher's general responsibilities would encompass that role as part of his or her normal duties. We continue to think that that is the case but, for the avoidance of doubt, we felt that it does no harm to put the measure in the bill.
We do so for the reason that Fiona Hyslop rightly said, which is that head teachers are not just managers but leaders. Increasingly, we are recognising the importance of school leadership in improving the standards of education in our schools. That is a central issue. It is important and proper for the important link between head teachers and parent councils to be expressly recognised in the bill. That is the background to our decision to respond favourably to the amendment in the name of Dr Jean Turner at stage 2.
Amendment 16 agreed to.
Section 13—Headteacher's report to Parent Council, Combined Parent Council or Parent Forum
Amendment 17 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 14—Procedures for appointment of headteacher or deputy and participation of a Parent Council
We move to group 9. Amendment 30, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, is the only amendment in the group.
In order to ensure that there is no diminution in the statutory rights of parents to participate in the appointment of senior staff, amendment 30 provides for parental representation and participation in the appointment of head teachers to be included in the bill. It makes provision for parent councils and local authorities to be equally represented on such appointment panels.
The wording of amendment 30 is very similar to that of schedule 2(2) to the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988. In evidence to the Education Committee, Bill McGregor of the Headteachers Association of Scotland said:
"The bill sets out to improve parental involvement and to encourage parents to join in the life of the school, so I would have thought that partnership would be implicit when it came to employing and appointing senior staff. My experience in 15 years as a head teacher was that parents thought it absolutely vital to be involved in that. One of the ironies of the bill is that it actually presents an opportunity to reduce the role of parents. I would find that very difficult to live with."—[Official Report, Education Committee, 14 December 2005; c 2917.]
Given that ministers have already introduced a provision to ensure that parents on appointments panels receive appropriate training, I strongly urge members to support amendment 30 in order to make certain that parents retain their influence over this crucial area.
Will the member give way?
I have finished, but I will give way to let Margo MacDonald have her say.
I have a question for Lord James. I put the worst possible case to him: what if not enough parents take enough of an interest or participate enough? Amendment 30 appears to be prescriptive.
The provision has worked well under the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988. Given that there is no great problem of the sort that Margo MacDonald raised, it is most unlikely that that would be the case in future. I believe that parents want to be fully involved, as they have been in the past.
I move amendment 30.
The appointment of a head teacher is absolutely crucial to the success of a school: a good head teacher can make a school and a bad head teacher can ruin one.
It used to be the case that only elected councillors were involved in the appointment process; something that was not satisfactory. Some years ago, I attended an interview for appointment as a principal teacher. The interview panel consisted of over 30 councillors. They were seated behind a long table and their average age looked to be 70 plus. I found the whole thing intimidating. The director of education read out my CV and said, "Gentlemen, are there any questions?" There was only an embarrassing silence, a few coughs and a shuffling of feet. The director of education then said, "The candidate will leave the room." I wondered what on earth I had done wrong. I never saw a more farcical interview situation in all my life. It is not sour grapes that makes me say that the appointment process must be improved, because for some reason that I do not understand I got the job.
The bill says:
"The appointment process must entail involvement in it of any Parent Council established for the school to which an appointment is to be made."
I agree with that, but the bill does not say how such involvement is to be achieved. There is merit in amendment 30, which would ensure parity of representation between the education authority and the parent council. Parents would make intelligent input into the appointment process—I am sure that parents' input would be much more intelligent than was the input into the interview that I endured all those years ago. I will support amendment 30 unless the minister persuades me to do otherwise.
I am concerned about the prescriptive nature of amendment 30. The bill makes it clear that there will be continued parental involvement in the appointment of head teachers to schools. In parallel with the bill's progress through the Parliament, the Executive consulted on procedures for the appointment of head teachers, because the system must be modernised to take account of the fact that the employment and education worlds have moved on since the legislation on school boards was enacted. The current process is too restrictive in its approach to parental involvement. In particular, parents can be involved only at the final interview stage, whereas they should be involved much earlier in the process. Parents should have a role in determining the sort of head teacher that their school needs and should take part in discussions with education authorities. Such opportunities do not exist under the current arrangements, but will be possible if the bill is passed.
It is important that there should be flexibility in the appointment process, so that there can be horses for courses. We should not prescribe the number of education authority or parent council members who should be on an appointment panel in every circumstance. Sometimes it might be appropriate for a majority of parents to be involved; sometimes less parental involvement will be needed at the final stage of the appointment process than is needed earlier. The Executive made clear—I hope that the minister will again say on the record—that it will ensure that parental involvement in the appointment process will continue and be enhanced when the bill is enacted.
Amendment 30 concerns one of the most controversial matters in the bill. The Executive's response to the consultation on the appointment procedure was published only halfway through stage 2.
Iain Smith has perhaps made the argument for agreeing to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's amendment 30, which would require appointment panels to consist of equal numbers of people from the education authority and the parent council and would ensure that a member of the education authority would have the casting vote. Most of the appointment procedure can be dealt with in guidance, but the relationship between the head teacher and the parent council is crucial and the requirement that an appointment panel should consist of equal numbers of members of the education authority and members of the parent council should be enshrined in statute.
Iain Smith said that parents might be in the majority on an appointment panel, but I disagree with such an approach. As we were repeatedly told by unions and local authorities, the local authority is the employer and must take the ultimate responsibility for the appointment. For exactly the reason why Iain Smith argues for flexibility, we think that the bill should provide for the composition of the appointment panel. The arrangements in amendment 30 are equitable and fair and would reflect the new era of professionalism in appointments and the education authority's role as the employer.
The debate has been good and important issues have been raised. As I said during stage 2, partnership is central to our approach in all aspects of the bill. The debate on amendment 30 has been characterised by an obsession with arithmetic and parity of membership of appointment panels, as opposed to concern about the quality of the appointments process. Partnership working will involve not just parents and local authorities—and the 90,000 or so councillors Dennis Canavan mentioned—but professional interests and knowledgeable parents, by which I mean parents who have had the opportunity to gain experience or receive training. Indeed, other members of appointment panels should have had such opportunities.
Section 14(2) says:
"The appointment process must entail involvement in it of any Parent Council established for the school to which an appointment is to be made."
That is an important provision, but it is the minimum that will be required. Section 14(3) gives the Scottish ministers power, by regulation, to
"impose requirements which an appointment process must satisfy"
and, by notice, to
"require an education authority to make such changes to their appointment process as may be specified in the notice."
So we have general and specific powers, which should enable us to take the appropriate action.
As Iain Smith said, we consulted widely on the draft bill. Importantly, we asked about the overarching principles of replacing and modernising the appointments process for senior staff and of retaining and extending parental involvement in that process. The further consultation in November asked about the finer details of the proposal. As I have said, our intention is that such detail should be set out in regulations rather than in primary legislation, as that will allow the process to adapt more easily to wider changes in the education agenda, not least of which are the changes to the standard for headship. In the debate on the previous group of amendments, Fiona Hyslop and I mentioned the importance of education leadership, as did Dennis Canavan a moment ago. The responses to the consultation show little or no enthusiasm for a return to the prescriptive legislation that we have at present, which has quickly become out of step because of changes to education practice and can cause unnecessary delays in the appointment process.
The bill is about parental involvement, and we want parents to be involved in the appointment of senior staff, but we must strike a balance between all the interests. We are not trying to set one group against another; we believe that appointment panels are stronger when they contain all the perspectives and when the members are focused on their single common interest, which is collectively to get the best possible candidate for the school. I agree entirely with Dennis Canavan's comments on that matter. However, our view remains that the Executive should not prescribe from the centre the detailed composition of panels, as that would apply to small rural schools, great big secondary schools and everything between.
Through regulations, we want to optimise parents' involvement at all stages of the appointment process. The bill makes appropriate provision, builds on the best of current practice and will allow flexibility in the future while guaranteeing parents a substantial and appropriate part in the procedure. Nevertheless, the central point is not about where people come from; rather it is about the quality of the input and of the outcome, by which I mean the standard of the head teacher who is appointed. I ask the Parliament to resist amendment 30, on the basis that the matters will be dealt with in regulations and that the provisions in the bill are appropriate and proportionate.
I call Lord James Douglas-Hamilton to wind up and to say whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 30.
I wish to press amendment 30.
The question is, that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Ind)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 41, Against 60, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 30 disagreed to.
Section 16—Establishment etc of Combined Parent Council
Amendments 18 to 20 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 18—Abolition of School Boards
Amendments 21 and 22 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Section 20—Interpretation
Amendments 23 and 24 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
Schedule
Repeals
Amendments 25 and 26 moved—[Robert Brown]—and agreed to.
That concludes the consideration of amendments.