Education Cuts
Good morning. The first item of business is a Labour Party debate on motion S3M-2120, in the name of Rhona Brankin, on education cuts.
I remind members that all speeches should be made through the chair, by which I mean that members should refer to other members by their preferred name or title.
The Scottish National Party has been in power for just over a year and already its education policy is in complete disarray. We are still no closer to knowing where the First Minister stands on his promise to reduce class sizes. On 5 September 2007, he told Parliament that class sizes would be reduced to 18 for primary 1 to 3 by 2011, yet we now know that civil servants are advising that the pledge would take eight to 10 years to deliver. I challenge the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning: will she either repeat the First Minister's assertion or show some courtesy to members by admitting that the First Minister misled Parliament when he gave that answer? Can we believe anything that the First Minister tells Parliament? Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the SNP has absolutely no intention of delivering its class size promise by 2011?
The SNP has been rumbled and now refuses to give timescales or costings for the class size commitment. The SNP promised the earth, with not even the vaguest notion of how it would deliver it or pay for it—not one extra penny has been given to councils to deliver the class size commitment—and now it is not big enough to admit that the promise is simply being ditched.
Does the member share my concern about Brora primary school, which is about to lose one teacher, which will result in class sizes rising from below 20 to the mid-20s? It is a matter of funding, and the council should make representations to the Scottish Government accordingly.
Yes. That is appalling, and it is being repeated throughout Scotland. In fact, according to a council official in SNP-led Renfrewshire, class sizes in secondary 1 and 2 maths and English are being put up in order to reduce class sizes in primary 1 to 3.
The SNP has also been rumbled on its physical education promise. The hapless Minister for Schools and Skills inadvertently told the truth on the abandonment of the policy of two hours of quality PE being delivered by PE specialists, resulting in an undignified scramble by the cabinet secretary to get on to "Good Morning Scotland" to insist that the target still stands. Quite how the PE target will be delivered is something of a mystery, given that the SNP's chums in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities do not agree with it.
If we look back on the first year of SNP education policy, what do we see? We see a catalogue of broken promises and local government underfunding, resulting in school closures, an increase in class sizes and cuts to staffing levels, pupil support and the curriculum. The SNP promises are being quietly ditched and cuts made because the cabinet secretary secured an appalling deal for education in the spending review. Education and lifelong learning received a cash increase of 7.2 per cent in the review—the lowest increase of any department. Even the First Minister's office received double the education increase—enough to keep even Alex Salmond in takeaways for a few years; yet the SNP claims that education is one of its top priorities.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I would like the cabinet secretary to listen to what I am saying. The teachers at Gleniffer high school in Paisley do not believe that education is one of her top priorities.
Will the member give way now?
No, thank you.
The teachers have written to Renfrewshire's SNP council, unanimously condemning the budget cuts, which
"make it impossible to offer the same level and depth of curriculum, pupil support and quality of teaching and learning."
Try telling parents at Flora Stevenson primary school in Edinburgh that the SNP prioritises education, when children from within the catchment area are being turned away, and when class sizes further up the school may increase due to a cut in staffing.
In Aberdeen, a £7.8 million package of cuts includes slashing funding for nursery education and disabled children and a plan to reduce the opening hours of all 12 of the city's secondary schools. Aberdeen grammar school's parent council is so concerned by the cuts, which could result in the school losing 11 teachers next academic year, that it has written to every parent outlining the major effects that the cuts will have on their children.
What will the education secretary say about that? The schools are all under councils where the SNP is in power or shares power.
Can Fiona Hyslop in all honesty tell heartbroken newly qualified primary teachers that education is a priority for the SNP Government when in many authorities hundreds of talented and committed new teachers are chasing a tiny number of posts?
Will Rhona Brankin give way?
No, I will not.
The general secretary of the Headteachers Association of Scotland has said:
"The bad news is that pupils will see one probationary teacher after another, year after year.
The profession will lose enthusiastic teachers and the quality of teaching and learning will suffer."
I fully expect to hear a familiar refrain from the cabinet secretary, saying that this is all Labour scaremongering and that everything in the SNP's school garden is rosy. She might even wave a rather battered concordat. Only yesterday, COSLA and the SNP had another love-in. They are a pair of lovebird ostriches with their heads in the sand, unable to see the scale of council cuts across Scotland—cuts that the SNP and COSLA would have us believe do not exist. However, cracks are appearing in the relationship: will the cabinet secretary tell me whether class size reductions were included in the original agreement between COSLA and the SNP Government and whether it is true that they were taken out of yesterday's joint statement at the councils' request?
"In its year in power the SNP has already been embarrassed by its education policy …. If the First Minister is to avoid education becoming his administration's Achilles heel, he needs to get a grip of this emerging crisis in Scotland's schools, and fast."
Those are not my words, but the words of the editorial in last weekend's Scotland on Sunday. The message from Scotland is clear. It is not scaremongering from me or the Labour Party; there is a clear story of cuts and crisis in our schools. It comes from teachers, who are the educators of the Scots men and women of the future; parents, who are the guardians of the Scots of the future; and school pupils, who are the Scots of the future. The message is that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning is failing Scottish education and the Scots of the future. There is no future for education with the SNP and I fear that, with its shambles of an education policy reduced to rubble in a mere 12 months, there is no future for Scotland.
I urge members to support the motion.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the lack of confidence expressed by parents, teachers, primary and secondary heads, and directors of education in the SNP government's handling of Scottish education; notes with concern the cuts in education provision across Scotland; calls on the First Minister to clarify the cost and timescale for delivery of his class-sizes pledge, made on 5 September 2007, when he promised the Parliament that his class-sizes pledge on primaries 1 to 3 would be met in the lifetime of this parliament; recognises the growing number of teachers coming to the end of their probationary year who are either unable to find a teaching post or who are forced into taking part-time or temporary employment; worries that if this trend is allowed to continue unchecked, it will undermine the internationally recognised success of the teacher induction scheme, and calls for immediate action from Scottish Ministers to address the impending jobs crisis.
The merchants of despair and disaster and the soothsayers of scaremongering are at it again. The harbingers of doom who long for Scotland to fail have found their champion in Rhona Brankin, who vindictively misquotes directors of education, milks the Educational Institute of Scotland's shot-across-the-bows motion—its third motion on industrial action in four years—and fails to recognise that the problems in Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh have their roots not in the fair local government settlement from this Government, but in Labour management at both national and local level in the past and, in Glasgow's situation, today.
I will set out the details of the local government finance settlement again. There is overall funding of £34.9 billion over the next three years. For 2008-09, there is an increase of 5 per cent; in 2009-10, there will be an increase of 4.1 per cent and, in 2010-11, an increase of 3.4 per cent. That is all in the context of a tight Government departmental spending limit, which is growing by 0.5 per cent this year, 1.6 per cent in 2009-10 and 2.3 per cent in 2010-11.
With the settlement we have not only halted the decline in local government's share of total expenditure but provided an annual increase. Education is well placed, given that it accounts for almost 50 per cent of all local government expenditure.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not.
Labour's views on cuts in provision are not universally shared. John Stodter, the general secretary of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland—the very association that Wendy Alexander misquoted at First Minister's question time last week—has said:
"Councils have been given an increased budget settlement this year."
Bruce Robertson, the director of education in Aberdeenshire, stated:
"The budget settlement was certainly tight but there have been no cuts at all and there has been some growth".
East Lothian Council's education budget increased by 2.9 per cent to £74 million and Falkirk Council's education spending increased by 11 per cent. In Fife, there is an increase of £41 million, including £9.6 million to support a reduction in class sizes. East Ayrshire's education budget increased by 6.9 percent in 2008-09 and North Lanarkshire's education budget increased by 5.5 per cent.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Sorry, but Labour's front bencher did not take an intervention.
Dundee publicly characterised the education budget as being fair with opportunities for growth. South Lanarkshire is employing teachers to reduce primary class sizes in deprived areas and West Lothian's education budget has increased by 4.1 per cent.
Of course, we recognise that one or two councils face particular challenges, in particular Aberdeen City Council. That is not a direct result of this settlement, as it was caused by a legacy of funding issues: a £50 million overspend under administrations of Labour, Tory and Lib Dem hue. Surely the responsible thing is for all parties to pull together to support Aberdeen. We are working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to do so.
Councillor Gordon Matheson, executive member for education in Glasgow City Council, said on 27 May:
"education's budget in Glasgow, in real terms, will be higher next year than it is this year".
What a pity that the council does not choose to invest that increased budget in maintaining teacher numbers, as it is resourced to do, and cutting class sizes. However, Labour does not believe in smaller class sizes. Let us tell that to the parents of Glasgow as they see class sizes come down elsewhere in Scotland while Labour stands in the way in Glasgow.
Wendy Alexander said in her famous hungry caterpillar speech that our request for 2 per cent efficiency savings was not ambitious enough and that she wanted the figure to be 3 per cent. Labour's position was to take all those savings out of local government.
The councils that are seeking efficiency savings from schools—and it is by no means all councils—are, like Renfrewshire, putting those savings back into education.
Let us talk about Renfrewshire. I quote from the headteacher at Gleniffer, who stated about the said letter:
"I wish to express my concerns as to its creation and contents. I am concerned that staff may have added their names to a document without checking its accuracy."
This is not the first time that Labour has come to the chamber to speak about Renfrewshire without checking the accuracy of its comments. The two local members of the Scottish Parliament were asked to comment on the draft budget and failed to do so. Believe it or not, despite raising the issue in the Parliament and broadcasting a blatantly misinformed letter from teachers at one school, which the headteacher rightly corrected, the two local MSPs—Wendy Alexander and Hugh Henry—have not even offered their local council a meeting or bothered to ask for one.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
No. I am sure that Mr Henry will get his chance to comment.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it not within the normal rules of engagement and debate in the chamber that when members are specifically mentioned by name, they should be given the opportunity to comment?
It does not come under standing orders, Mr Henry. I am afraid that it is entirely up to the member who is speaking whether they take an intervention.
It is expected that around 6,000 teachers will leave the profession this year—most of them are retiring—and 3,500 probationer teachers are coming into the system. There is plenty of opportunity for councils to maintain teacher numbers at a time of falling school rolls to reduce class sizes throughout the country. The local government settlement provides for that.
In its desperation to find isolated examples of local authorities making changes to how they provide their education services, Labour continues to miss the point. The concordat unfetters local government to allow local authorities to make the choices that they consider most appropriate for their areas. We will continue to work with local government on that task.
More important, this Government will not use children's education for political posturing or to score cheap points. If Labour maliciously fosters discontent, as it is doing, without firm foundation, parents will find its position on education unforgivable.
I move amendment S3M-2120.3, to leave out from first "recognises" to end and insert:
"welcomes the potential for educational improvement for Scottish pupils offered by the local government settlement which delivered record levels of funding for local authorities and which Labour members voted for; recognises that the Concordat between local and national government is giving local authorities greater scope to improve educational outcomes by freeing them up from unnecessary bureaucracy, as well as giving them greater local accountability, and notes that the new single outcome agreements, which will be finalised shortly, will include specific local and national outcomes which, over time, will deliver real benefits for pupils in every local authority area in Scotland."
I welcome the opportunity provided by the Labour Party to discuss education cuts. Despite what we have heard from Fiona Hyslop, undoubtedly we are seeing cuts in educational provision across Scotland. I accept that some responsibility for that rests with local authorities, but some of it comes back directly to Government policy.
We have heard from all over Scotland about people having problems with accessing advanced higher courses. We have seen the axing of the schools of ambition programme that delivers many benefits to schools across Scotland, particularly to schools in deprived areas. On the Government's flagship policy of reducing class sizes, at least one council—SNP-controlled Renfrewshire Council—has increased class sizes in S1 and S2 English and maths. There is no doubt that there is widespread concern across Scotland about where education is headed.
All that we have heard from the Government—and we can see it in the SNP amendment and we heard it from the minister—is the same old response: "It wisnae me. It's nothing to do with us. It is all up to the local authorities. Under the concordat, they deliver educational services, and therefore all the blame attaches to them, not us."
I have no difficulty with the general proposition that we should have greater devolution of power to local authorities. The problem is that the SNP does not apply that approach even-handedly. Many of the problems faced by education today are a direct result of the Government's misguided policy on reducing class sizes in primary 1 to 3, and making that a priority above all others in education, despite the lack of hard and convincing evidence that it should be the top priority for education.
We feel that extra resources should be concentrated in many other areas of education, but the SNP is hamstrung by its manifesto commitment, which it is struggling to fulfil. It is all right for the SNP Government to claim credit for the things that it thinks are going its way in education, such as the class size reductions, but when it comes to all the bad things that are happening, such as cuts, it seeks to pass the buck to local authorities. It simply will not wash.
I turn to the Conservative amendment. I recognise that there are widespread concerns about the current situation in education and I agree with much of the Labour motion. However, that does not excuse the EIS's irresponsible decision, taken at its conference last week, to ballot its members on industrial action.
I well remember—as I was a school pupil at the time—the damage that was done to Scottish education as a result of the last teachers' strike. The teaching profession has done well since then, with the McCrone settlement delivering enhanced status for the profession and substantially enhanced terms and conditions. Whatever concerns the EIS might have, strike action is simply not the answer and is unacceptable
Those who suffer from any strike are those who cannot defend themselves—namely, Scotland's school pupils. The damage that might be done to the education and career prospects of our young people, particularly those who are at a critical point, facing standard grade or higher exams, could be irreparable. Parliament must condemn the EIS's decision to ballot for strike action and I urge the EIS to show restraint. It does not have public sympathy on the issue, and any residual sympathy it might have will be lost if it calls its members out on strike.
Yesterday, a leading academic, James Stanfield of Newcastle University, made direct criticism of Scottish education. According to him, we have fallen behind our counterparts in England and are still living on our historical reputation. The SNP Government's approach to education is failing, and it refuses to take any responsibility for what is happening in Scotland's classrooms. We cannot afford to see our education system made worse by the first teachers' strike in a generation and the harm that would be done to the life chances of today's youngsters.
I move amendment S3M-2120.1, to insert at end:
"but condemns the decision of the Educational Institute of Scotland at its recent conference to ballot its members on industrial action, and believes that any strike action by teachers will be immensely damaging to educational provision in Scotland and to Scotland's school pupils."
Time after time, we hear the SNP Government saying that it is delivering on its promises. According to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, every council has more than enough to deliver on them. There is enough money not only to deliver all the Government's education policies but to provide tax cuts—a council tax freeze and a reduction in business taxation—to the tune of more than £1.25 billion. When parents ask why there are education cuts in their local areas, the SNP is clear that the fault lies with the councils, as the First Minister has said and as the cabinet secretary repeated today. Alternatively, we have not had enough money from London, as SNP back benchers say every day.
Today, however, there has been a shift. There is no longer a new relationship with local government per se but a new relationship only with local authorities that agree with the Government. Only councils that have signed up to all the Government's policies without question have been commented on by the cabinet secretary today; those councils that have dared to make their own locally democratic and locally accountable decisions are in the wrong. That is what we heard from the First Minister last week and from the cabinet secretary this morning. Out of the window has gone the new relationship with local government.
Parents and teachers are not stupid; they have seen the contortions of spin from SNP ministers over recent weeks. A few weeks ago, Chris Harvie talked admiringly about what he called small, acrobatic European nations, but their acrobatics are no match for those of the SNP on the crystal-clear promises that it made in the election. The promised reductions in class sizes turned into "year-on-year progress" and then to focusing on deprived areas. The Government now says that the promise will be delivered only for those people who are fortunate enough to live in an area with a falling school roll. In my constituency, where school rolls are increasing, there is no hope of that. The Government had promised access to a fully qualified nursery teacher for every nursery child in Scotland but, one year on, the SNP still refuses to define what it means by "access". The Government had promised to match the Opposition's school building programme brick for brick, but its policy has materialised as simply finishing off the schemes that we started. Not one new school building scheme has been commissioned under the new Government. The SNP had promised to double the number of school nurses, but that promise is now simply to become part of a review of community nursing services.
If the Government had been up front, had held up its hands and had told parents that its policies were uncosted and undeliverable, of course it would have been attacked, but at least it would have had a modicum of respect. Instead, we have had only spin and contortion since last May.
The Government has now been joined by COSLA, which yesterday issued a briefing to researchers—not MSPs—that states:
"COSLA does not believe that we should be focussing on input measures".
That is a curious position for a negotiating body to have, even one that drafted in Proust to write the historic concordat. I cannot wait to hear whether, when it gets round the table for negotiations on next year's settlement, it will begin by proudly stating, "Government, simply tell us how much you want to give us and we will accept it."
On the school building programme, Fiona Hyslop was perfectly clear last year when she said:
"We think that schools and pupils will obtain far better value from a futures-trust funded school than from a PPP-funded school. … the futures trust will provide a very attractive option for local authorities and I think that many are waiting with great anticipation to use it."—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 27 June 2007; c 40.]
One year on, they are still waiting. Although COSLA welcomes the fact that there is no longer ring fencing, the cabinet secretary knows that discussions took place just last week on reintroducing revenue support grant. Without central Government support such as revenue support grant, local authorities know that they cannot deliver schools.
On class sizes, the First Minister was perfectly clear on 5 September and Maureen Watt was perfectly clear on 13 September. When asked by my colleague Robert Brown whether the Government's education team had estimated the cost of delivering the SNP's promise on class sizes, Maureen Watt stated:
"Of course we have made a bid to meet those commitments."—[Official Report, 13 September 2007; c 1757.]
The reference was to a bid to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth to meet the Government's education commitments. Either she misled the Parliament deliberately or the Government has the figures and is unwilling to tell us. The Government must tell not only Parliament but parents, teachers and pupils throughout Scotland. That is why the Government, rather than the Opposition, is losing respect.
I move amendment S3M-2120.2, to insert at end:
"welcomes the assessment from the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland that implementation of the SNP policy to cut class sizes to 18 in P1-P3 requires £360 million of capital for additional classrooms and £62 million of recurring revenue funding, and therefore calls on the First Minister to confirm to the Parliament whether his government believes that this is an accurate estimate and why."
We come to the open debate. Speeches should be of around four minutes.
Today's debate comes at a critical time for Scottish education. Just over 12 months ago, prior to the Scottish elections, many promises were made by each of the parties on how they would improve Scottish education.
The SNP has been given the opportunity to fulfil its promises. However, if a week is a long time in politics, 12 months is an age. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning must be wondering how it is all going so wrong. Parents who are concerned and angry at budget cuts in education services have been writing to MSPs and councillors. Directors of education—who have not been misquoted—have told the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee that local authorities do not have the money to deliver class size reductions. Teachers have supported a motion that calls for industrial action. Ms Hyslop said that that has happened before, but the difference this time is that leaders of teachers are calling for it. However, the SNP still has the temerity to move an amendment extolling the virtues of the historic concordat.
Let us look at a few facts. The local government settlement provided local authorities with more money than they had had before, but demand for services is increasing. The suggestion that local authorities should also pick up the tab for SNP promises adds to that financial burden. It is not surprising that some local authorities have had to make cuts in their education spending. Apart from the public cuts in Aberdeen, subject choice has been curtailed in Renfrewshire, departmental budgets have been slashed in Glasgow and school kitchens have been closed in Edinburgh, despite the commitment to provide healthy meals in schools. The squeeze on education spending means that the promised reductions in class sizes to 18 are unlikely to happen; they will definitely not happen over the spending review period, as the First Minister promised last September.
Can Mary Mulligan bring herself to recognise that West Lothian Council, which serves an area of growing population, will reduce class sizes in 14 primary schools this year? She told the people and parents of Armadale that Armadale academy would not be built if Labour were to lose and the SNP were to win the election 12 months ago. Will she recognise that it is being built and will be opened under an SNP council and Government?
Let us consider the 14 schools to which the minister refers. Parents are already complaining that they cannot get their children into the Catholic school in Blackburn, although the next-nearest Catholic school is 3 miles away. Westfield primary school was a real challenge—there are only 23 pupils in the whole school, so no wonder class sizes of 18 can be achieved. The Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee heard evidence that the benefits of smaller classes in P1 to P3 may be negated in one Edinburgh primary school by larger classes further up, but the cabinet secretary is happy for that to happen.
The probationary teachers scheme has been hailed as groundbreaking across the political spectrum and beyond Scotland's borders, but it is clear for all to see that cuts to education budgets and the failure to achieve class size reductions place it at risk.
Yesterday, an academic claimed in The Times that the Scottish education system was failing our children. I do not accept his accusation, but it is telling that a Scottish Government spokesperson responded to it. Were the cabinet secretary and her ministers not prepared to defend their policies? Ministers' inability to answer questions on their headline policies is worrying. To be fair, I believe that the cabinet secretary wants to deliver those policies, but if she cannot provide the answers to today's Labour motion, she and her ministers may need to reflect on whether, if there were an examination on being a cabinet secretary and delivering policies, they would pass the test.
This debate is about confidence or gloom—I suggest that it should be about confidence. Local authority budgets have been increased by 12.9 per cent, to £34.9 billion, by 2011. In contrast, local government's share of Scottish Executive expenditure fell by 4 per cent between 2002-03 and 2007-08. That makes a big difference to the way in which we put the argument.
In its briefing for the debate, COSLA recognises:
"The outcomes approach provides a huge opportunity for local government and all of the public sector agencies in an area to focus their resources on a small number of agreed national outcomes and the contribution that they are able to make to them locally."
I wish to highlight some examples from Highland, the local authority area where I live. There has already been mention in the debate of one of the schools there. We should start off with the class size issue. In Highland, where there is a falling school roll, 100 of the 183 primary schools have already met the target, and a phased programme is in hand, which includes team teaching and other changes. There will always be changes in how local authorities deploy their resources, because they must constantly meet the changing needs of society, and that will happen no matter whether there is a change in Government.
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes, just the one.
Does the member accept that there have been cuts in the services for children with autistic spectrum disorder in Highland? Does he believe that that shows that the SNP holds those children's education as a priority?
If members isolate any figure, they can possibly make an argument about it. In Rhona Brankin's case, I do not know the facts around the issue, and she would have to provide them before we could argue over the matter. It was an assertion on Rhona Brankin's part.
It has been suggested that, because of changes in society, Brora primary school will lose a teacher. What was the previous Liberal and Labour Administration doing to build up the population in Brora to ensure that it was possible to keep the numbers up?
Will the member give way on that point?
All that those parties are doing now is moaning because they are in opposition and picking up on a small point that is nothing to do with the administration of Highland Council.
I do think that the member should give way on that point.
Siddown.
As far as we are concerned, we are moving into a situation where efficiencies must be made. Let us consider the public-private partnership situation that we have inherited. In Highland Council, about £25 million a year extra is paid because of the cost of PPP. Less maintenance is required for new schools, but the money still has to be paid up front because of that inheritance, so there is no room for flexibility for Highland Council, and school transport, energy and administration now have to be targeted, rather than using a wider palette for making efficiencies.
What else has been going on? The party that brought in PPP is now complaining that schools such as Wick high school have not reached the top of the list. The Scottish futures trust can provide a way forward, in a way that PPP did not. Under the previous Administration, that school got worse and worse. That is the sort of inheritance that we have to deal with, and that is why I suggest that the confidence that we can bring is much better than the gloom that is being brought to the debate by members of other parties. On numeracy, they claim figures that they cannot prove, because they cannae count. On literacy, they cannot even read COSLA's arguments. Labour's motion is beyond remedial help.
I do not intend to engage in the personalisation of the debate that Fiona Hyslop started, but I would be happy to meet her to consider my correspondence to Renfrewshire Council on education and the feeble replies that I have received from that council.
Today, cabinet secretary, I want you to rise above the party politics of this subject. I want you to set aside some of the to-ing and fro-ing and tit for tat that often goes on, and I want you to listen to—
Could you speak through the chair, Mr Henry?
Sorry, Presiding Officer.
I want the cabinet secretary to listen to and respond to the voices of ordinary people in Renfrewshire. Will she answer Mrs June Ramsay, who is dismayed that, due to budget cuts, her daughter is in the dark as to whether Gleniffer high school, or any school in Renfrewshire, will be providing advanced higher art? She wants to know what sort of message it sends to snatch away the opportunity to study art from a young person who wishes to stay on at school, and who has been able to study art until now.
Will the member give way on that point?
No, thank you.
I want the cabinet secretary to answer Jacqueline Masterson and Ruth Walsh, parents of children at Gleniffer high school, who are concerned about the impact that the withdrawal of supported study and homework club services will have on pupils at the school, particularly those from areas of high deprivation.
I want the cabinet secretary to answer not me but Fiona Wilkie, who is worried about the impact of the removal of all sciences at advanced higher level on her daughter's opportunity to study medicine at university. I want the cabinet secretary to answer Mary Hill, Lorraine Knotts, Moira McKillop and Gillian Hill, parents of pupils at Gleniffer high school, who are concerned about the budget cuts and who are wondering what the point is of building a brand new school if the resources are not going to be available to run it properly.
I want the cabinet secretary to answer Christopher Voysey, a school pupil who organised a petition that was signed by more than 100 senior pupils from throughout Renfrewshire. The petition was ignored by her SNP colleagues on Renfrewshire Council, who, at the last point of checking, have not even had the decency to reply to Christopher's letter, which was sent along with the petition.
I want the cabinet secretary to answer Erica Wishart, who is not only a parent who is concerned about the impact that budget cuts will have on her child's education but a network teacher who fears for her job in a specialism that is under threat from the cuts.
I want the cabinet secretary to answer the EIS members at St Benedict's high school, who believe that
"with a reduction in teaching staff, increased class sizes, a reduced curriculum, cuts in teaching, learning support and behaviour support, the quality of educational provision in St. Benedict's will be severely compromised".
I also want her to answer properly the EIS members at Gleniffer high school, whom I believe she has misquoted. They have said that the cuts in funding
"make it impossible to offer the same level and depth of curriculum".
I want the cabinet secretary to answer the 80 members of staff at Paisley grammar school, who are concerned about the impact of budget cuts in their school.
The cuts are happening on the cabinet secretary's watch. The parents, pupils and teachers in Renfrewshire are looking to the cabinet secretary for leadership. They want her to use her influence with her SNP colleagues in Renfrewshire. They want her to use the status of her post to protect education. I am asking the cabinet secretary to act for ordinary Scots who are worried. Will she ask Renfrewshire Council to think again? Will she dip into her Administration's budgets to protect education? Will she do the right thing?
The chamber has been privileged to bear witness to the hungry caterpillar speech. Here, too, the major Opposition party failed to vote for a budget that had been amended as it wanted. Stunning events. Thankfully, they were overshadowed by the implementation of a historic concordat—I repeat, a historic concordat—which is an agreement between the national Government of Scotland and Scotland's local government to work together. Some of us—I am one—find it incredible that we have had to wait so long for central Government to sit down with local authorities and work out a strategy to improve the governance of Scotland. No wonder that Labour councils are saying, "Thank God for the SNP Government."
At the beginning of last month, Wendy Alexander and her staff were running around Renfrewshire, trying to stir up a story about exam choices that proved to be untrue. Scaremongering is bad enough in any circumstance, but when school pupils and their futures are at stake, it is nothing short of a disgrace. At the end of the same month, Wendy Alexander's staff were again peddling lies, putting words into the innocent mouth of COSLA and alleging a shortfall of £400 million—
Excuse me, Ms McKelvie. You cannot accuse other members of lying in the chamber. I ask you to revisit that sentence.
Let me revisit that. I said that Wendy Alexander's staff, not members in the chamber, were peddling lies.
I find that terminology unacceptable, Ms McKelvie. I ask you to apologise and move on.
Okay. Wendy Alexander's staff were peddling untruths. They alleged a shortfall of £400 million and that councils were clamouring for a return to ring fencing.
I am sorry to keep interrupting, Ms McKelvie, but I have asked you to apologise for that terminology. I would be grateful if you would do so.
I apologise to the chamber, Presiding Officer.
COSLA, of course, knew nothing about that fabrication and dismissed the allegation. It was revealed later that the figures that had been used were nothing more nor less than an invention on the part of Labour staffers. It has been reported that none other than the chief Labour number cruncher, Arthur Midwinter, came up with them. Fakery, indecision and falsehood—Labour's lines on education funding are about as certain as Labour's referendum policy. Labour's credibility on Scottish education is about as solid as Alistair Darling's credibility on income tax, Harriet Harman's credibility on leadership donations and—after last night—Gordon Brown's credibility. Believing Labour's figures on education would be like believing that it did not do too badly in Crewe and Nantwich.
Not only do we have the unedifying sight of Labour members lumbering into this chamber to churn out inaccuracies, supposition and invention in support of the decidedly dodgy dossier on education, they add to that disgraceful performance by refusing to apologise for the smears when they are challenged.
Labour's numbers on education simply do not add up. They have never stacked up, and they never will stack up, as long as its attention is focused on pouring vitriol on the SNP Government rather than on contributing positively to the debate. If last month's nonsense was an indication of the state of Labour's research, it is no wonder that the country was in such a mess when the SNP Government took over last year.
It is a long, hard road to restore Scottish education, but the Scottish Government has started out on it. The concordat—yes, the historic one—between the SNP Government and Scotland's councils has freed up local authority funds for education, and councils the length and breadth of this country are taking advantage of that to improve education services.
It is a pity that Labour members do not put as much trust in their councillors as the SNP Government does. Perhaps they should pay attention to the joint statement that was signed yesterday by the First Minister, on behalf of the Scottish Government, and Councillor Pat Watters, the president of COSLA, which said:
"These changes give power back to local people, better able to judge for themselves, on a consistent basis right across Scotland, the quality and value of their local services."
Government in Scotland is no longer focused on the whinges of the past, but focused on how we can build a better future. Perhaps Labour members will want to learn that lesson while they still have a chance to recover some semblance of relevance as a party.
I start at the point at which Christina McKelvie ended, on the so-called historic concordat:
"These changes give power back to local people, better able to judge for themselves, on a consistent basis right across Scotland, the quality and value of their local services."
In one of the local authority areas that I represent—South Ayrshire—the cuts that are taking place are affecting some of the youngest and most vulnerable school pupils. South Ayrshire Council has decided to scrap free school bus travel for a number of school pupils who currently receive it. I can tell the chamber that the parents, pupils and teachers who have contacted me and other local representatives about the matter are judging the concordat and finding it wanting in several ways. I might be about to sound critical of the Tory leader of South Ayrshire Council, but I think that he is a decent person and I hope that he will forgive me if I sound overly critical; my comments are not meant to be personal. However, he has made it clear that further unpalatable decisions—those words have been used recently—will need to be made because of the cuts and the underfunding of local government.
To get back to the parents, I questioned the Minister for Schools and Skills on their comments and she kindly sent me a written answer in which she made it clear that the Government did not expect that changes would be made in relation to the travelling distances for school transport. The decision was taken in South Ayrshire without consulting parents, it flies in the face of what is deemed to be good practice and it has caused real concern. Concern has also been caused by the fact that some of those who took the decision—I refer to both Conservative and SNP councillors—have gone to ground and seem unwilling to meet parents to justify their decision or even to consider the constructive options that parents have suggested to solve the problem.
I appreciate that difficult decisions have to be made—of course they do. Anyone in a Government position has to make them—I had to do so—but I hope that they would be prepared, at the very least, to meet parents rather than, as one response to parents said—[Interruption.] The cabinet secretary is making comments that I cannot make out, but I hope that she will answer this point in her summing up. The response said that parents would be better to
"get together to form ‘walking buses' … one or two will walk all their neighbours' weans to school. I am told this works well in some other districts … and is a better use of campaigners' time than harassing councillors."
Is that the kind of local democracy that the cabinet secretary supports? Will she intervene, as Hugh Henry has asked her to do, and at least secure a fair hearing for the parents before an irreversible decision is taken?
I asked East Ayrshire Council, which is the other local authority in my constituency, for an assurance that its single outcome agreement would contain a commitment to reduce class sizes to 18 over time. In its response, the council said:
"The SOA has focused on largely strategic matters and may therefore not make specific reference to this operational recommendation. For example, this recommendation would be considered as an input which may impact on the strategic outcome of raising attainment across the authority."
Will the cabinet secretary tell the parents, teachers, pupils and local authority officers of East Ayrshire whether they must reduce class sizes to 18 by 2011? Will that happen or not?
I noted with interest the Labour Party's decision to bring this debate to the Parliament and I anticipated that Labour would take its usual attacking approach to Scottish National Party strategy. It is sad that I have been proven correct.
The broken record from the Labour benches on class sizes and teaching strikes is beginning to be boring. However, time and again Labour members fail to mention their failure on class sizes. They are no strangers to U-turns: the previous Executive set a target of a maximum of 20 pupils in mathematics and English classes; before last year's election it changed the target to an average of 20 pupils; and it then abandoned the plan altogether. The EIS has campaigned for small class sizes since the Parliament opened, and was understandably furious at Labour's decision to ditch its plans. The EIS voted last week for a strike ballot on class size reduction, but it should be noted that under the previous Labour-Lib Dem Executive the EIS voted twice—in 2004 and in 2006—for industrial action over class sizes.
To add to Labour's disappointment, COSLA said that at no point had the EIS ever raised its concerns on education budgets with COSLA. It is time that Labour stopped harping on about an issue on which it failed to deliver. It should consider that COSLA also said:
"in this debate we also need to be clear that nothing stays the same for ever."
Under the SNP, local authority budgets will increase by 12.9 per cent, of which around half will be spent on education. The Renfrewshire Council education budget is £146.7 million this year, compared with £139 million last year. I allay any lingering fears on the part of Labour members by saying that £958,000 of the budget has been invested in reducing class sizes.
We must appreciate the importance of understanding the local authority role in deciding education budgets. In that context, I mention the position of Labour members of Renfrewshire Council, who wanted to make an estimated £800,000 of cuts or efficiency savings—or whatever terminology members want to use—from the reduction in school rolls. The actual cut or efficiency saving was £430,000—almost half what was hoped for. How does a Labour proposal for such a huge cut or efficiency saving take into consideration the wellbeing of young people in Renfrewshire? It does not do so, and neither do the majority of Labour suggestions. COSLA said:
"Put simply, we should be concentrating on the difference we make to children's health, well-being and attainment rather than individual lines of spend and every input they resource."
The Greenock Telegraph this week carried a story about Wendy Alexander, who was complaining—nothing new there—about the apparent lack of new schools in Inverclyde. Perhaps she should have done some research about the pitiful two new schools that were built in Inverclyde under Labour between 1999 and 2003. In the article, she is quoted as saying that when people leave school they should be allowed to go on to college. I agree, but she should also have said that she and her colleagues voted to maintain the graduate endowment, which placed an extra burden of debt on students.
I am pleased that COSLA does not think that the Labour motion is worth signing. I agree, and I ask members to reject the time-wasting motion. Let us get on with the job of delivering a better, well-educated Scotland, with local authorities delivering for Scotland's schoolchildren.
We come to the closing speeches.
The debate has been interesting. A range of facts and figures, some of them debatable, have been bandied across the chamber. I see no great value in reciting a further litany of the damage that this SNP Government is doing to the education system in Scotland by inflicting a death by a thousand cuts on education services across the country. However, in and through this debate, we must continue to highlight the negative impact that its imposition of uncosted policy decisions is having on services in our local communities.
The level of complacency on the part of both the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and the Minister for Schools and Skills is completely breathtaking. It is simply not acceptable for them to pass the buck to Westminster or to browbeat councils into taking responsibility for delivering Government policies without them having the resources to do so. Frankly, those two make Pontius Pilate look decisive.
Time and time again—indeed, almost always—the Government's response to legitimate and reasoned questions on costs, buildings and other issues is that it is someone else's fault or responsibility. On almost every question that I have asked the Government on schools, teachers or class sizes, the response has been, "It's nae us, it's the cooncils." Indeed, such is the concern at local government level that even SNP councillors, in private meetings, are asking searching questions about the cabinet secretary and the whole management of the education department under her stewardship. I am told that such is the panic at the heart of the SNP Government and its education department that guidelines have been issued to local authorities to use the fully funded places scheme to try to meet the class size commitment.
Every member has heard accounts of probationers being told that there is no permanent job for them and being offered supply work and stories of staff being shuffled, reallocated and repositioned. Regardless of how it is done, and no matter how it is defined, if a cut is made in the level of support services to children with special needs, it is a cut. If teachers are redeployed so that they have larger numbers of pupils, the level of support will be nothing like it was beforehand.
Let us look at the success of the flagship policy of cutting class sizes, through the example of two councils: North Lanarkshire Council and Clackmannanshire Council. In North Lanarkshire, a mere 49 schools will, perhaps, have a primary 1 class size of 18 or under. The average class size across the council will be 20.5 pupils, with composite classes averaging 21.4. In Clackmannanshire, the numbers in 10 P1 classes will exceed 20 and the numbers in a further 11 composite classes could be as high as 24. On hearing those figures and others that we have heard in the debate, the SNP Government cannot continue to believe that it is delivering its class size commitments—it is not. The Government needs to be held to account at every opportunity for making promises that it is clearly failing to deliver.
This time last year, I was writing my last set of school reports. I could not help but be struck by the change in style that had taken place since I began my teaching career. Gone were the days of bluntly telling a parent that their little treasure had failed an exam and in were the days of saying that they had met the grade-related criteria in question 1, but done not so well in questions 2 to 10. As Rob Gibson said, in education these days, the way in which things are said seems to matter more than what is said. Frankly, this is where the Government has got itself into what the French would describe as "une débâcle totale"—I am practising for the French baccalaureate that we hear we are getting—otherwise known as a complete mess.
Let us take class sizes. I am sure that the Scottish Government is well intentioned in seeking to reduce the numbers in primaries 1 to 3 to a maximum of 18. However, ministers have completely failed to realise that the directors of education in our local authorities are telling them that, in many cases, setting specific targets is not the right way to do things. The Government insists on doing that, but authorities are telling it that delivering on class sizes simply cannot happen without spending an additional £420 million on more teachers and classrooms. That is many times the sum that the SNP originally estimated—so much for a Government that prides itself on numeracy and literacy.
Take the example that Jamie Stone mentioned of Brora primary school in the Highlands, which is being forced to lose a member of staff simply because its school roll has dropped from 97 to 96 pupils and because the local council says that it must adhere to a mathematical formula, never mind the local circumstances. There is also the instance of Renfrewshire Council, which, as Rhona Brankin said, is scrapping current class size limits in English and maths in S1 and S2 to pay for the new ones in P1 to P3. Those are two very blunt messages, but the Government is not listening.
In addition, the Government has got into a complete mess on flexibility. It insists that it wants more flexibility for local authorities and headteachers, so why did it persist with scrapping the successful schools of ambition programme, which acknowledges that schools know their situation much better than the Government ever could and allows them the freedom to decide how best to spend their money?
Will the member at least admit that the Government is spending more on schools of ambition in this parliamentary session than the previous Government spent on the programme?
If that is true, why is the Government scrapping the programme?
Many people are upset because the inflexibility can only create problems elsewhere. We know that advanced higher courses are being cut, as Murdo Fraser set out. We also know that, on PE and outdoor education—or, in SNP language, walking to school and healthy living—schools are struggling to come up with enough resources to find the specialist teachers. Ironically, that is at a time when many probationary teachers cannot find a job. I am pleased that the SNP is taking our policy proposals on some of those matters seriously, and I am grateful for the support of other parties, too, but I will be much happier, as will the teaching profession and parents throughout Scotland, when we have real devolution in our schools at local level, so that we can ensure that those activities happen.
The final report card is not looking too good for the Government. There are too many lapses of concentration; problems with sums; not enough exercise; and maybe even problems with the bullies in the playground, who this time are not Labour members but EIS members, whom I believe are seriously endangering the lives and educational futures of our children through the action that they have taken. Let me say unequivocally that we do not support the EIS in any way on strike action, because that puts into jeopardy the whole situation. We support the EIS in some of the complaints that it is making, but not on strike action. The Government must do better. Just for once, can we put educational needs rather than targets at the top of the agenda?
Unlike Hugh O'Donnell, I am hard pushed to think of a more mean-spirited debate in the Parliament than the one that we have had this morning. Indeed, "debate" is far too dignified a word to describe the whining performance of the Opposition parties. It has been scaremongering, factually inaccurate, sour and carping. That is the tone of the contribution that we have come to expect not only from Rhona Brankin, but from the Labour approach to opposition, which is encapsulated in the motion.
Let me do a little deconstruction.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, I will not. Sit down, please.
According to Labour members, there is a lack of confidence in the Scottish Government—they wish. On the contrary, I see and hear enthusiasm for the Government's agenda up and down and across the country as I undertake my ministerial duties. The most oft-heard description of our approach is that it is a breath of fresh air. There is a great deal of support for our focus on the early years and widespread anticipation of the policy framework that we are developing. In primary schools, I find a huge welcome for and willingness to engage with the curriculum for excellence. To be sure, there may be more sceptics in the secondary sector, but many teachers there have less than fond memories of the higher still reforms. Their concerns are about not policy principles or intentions, but implementation, and we are working hard to address those concerns.
Will the minister give way?
No, I will not.
As for directors of education, Wendy Alexander brazenly misrepresented their view at First Minister's question time last week. Like Bruce Robertson—the immediate past president of ADES—most directors of education acknowledge the reality. Mr Robertson said:
"The budget settlement was tight but there have been no cuts at all and there has been some growth."
In her speech, the cabinet secretary ran through a list of education budget increases across the country. Facts are chiels that winna ding, and they give the lie to Labour's absurd claims. Even Gordon Matheson, Glasgow's education convener, has had to admit that the education budget in Glasgow will be higher next year than this year in real terms.
As for efficiency savings, Labour members will remember their leader's hungry caterpillar speech, in which she berated this Government's efficiency targets as being not ambitious enough and demanded a 3 per cent figure. Members should remember that, under the SNP, local authorities get to keep the efficiency savings that they make to reinvest in services, whereas Labour clawed back the savings to the centre. Now those were cuts.
Will the minister take an intervention on that point?
No. Sit down, please.
Let me turn to class sizes. Again, Labour doublespeak is to the fore, with condemnation for our historic concordat, which commits local government to show year-on-year progress towards delivery of our policy of reducing class sizes to 18 in P1 to P3. Apparently, that cannot deliver quickly enough. But wait a minute—Labour does not even believe in the policy. According to Wendy Alexander, class sizes are not a good measure of what matters. Steven Purcell gave the game away completely this week when he claimed that reducing class sizes was not a productive way of improving education. We beg to differ—and what is more, the Scottish public agree with us. The research evidence backs that up.
Finally, there is the rubbish about probationary teachers. According to the General Teaching Council for Scotland, 92.7 per cent of last year's probationers are teaching—a 5 per cent rise on last year. At a time when more teachers are being trained than ever before—20,000 in the next three years—that is a brilliant result. Okay, some are working part time, and some are in supply, which is not ideal, but they will get permanent full-time jobs as 6,000 teachers retire year on year for the next few years.
Can Ken Macintosh tell us what other group of graduates have better prospects of pursuing their preferred career? I contend there are not any—especially now that the wheels have come off Gordon Brown's much-vaunted economic policies.
I commend the SNP's amendment to a motion that is as crass and incompetent as any that has ever appeared in this chamber.
I thank Mr Ingram for raising the tone of the debate above the "carping" that we heard earlier.
This week saw the publication of some very worrying UK figures that will have confirmed to all of us the extent of the challenge that faces us in eradicating poverty in this paradoxically wealthy country of ours. The figures will have dismayed those of us who are in politics to try to tackle and reduce inequalities of wealth and opportunity. However, what made me even more depressed was the response of SNP ministers. They did not roll up their sleeves and get on with the task in hand; their response was to blame Westminster and to call for separation. Motions then followed from the back benchers calling for control of our benefits and taxation systems. The motions did not say what the SNP would do with those systems; they simply called for control.
It was depressing that none of the SNP's press releases spoke about what we could do here in the Scottish Parliament to tackle poverty, using the range of powers and controls at our disposal. Arguably one of the biggest and most important weapons in tackling child poverty is education. Education is key to improving the life chances of our children, no matter the circumstances in which they are born, yet the SNP Government is cutting funding to vulnerable two-year-olds.
Education is crucial to our success in tackling poverty, yet the ministerial budget for education received the lowest settlement of all ministerial budgets. The SNP talks long and hard about how control over our affairs is the solution to all our ills, yet when it is given total control over education policy, it fails to deliver on any of its promises or commitments across the board.
The SNP promised to build schools. However, not only has it failed to commission a single school, it has introduced a funding mechanism in the form of the Scottish futures trust that has attracted scorn and derision and has more to do with a dramatic obsession with PPP than with the practical reality of building schools. The SNP promised smaller class sizes throughout the country, but it seems happy to sit back while its colleagues in SNP-led councils close schools, lose teaching posts and, in Renfrewshire, apparently reverse the class size cuts in secondaries that Labour introduced.
On the one hand, the SNP is quick to blame Westminster for all the evils under the sun, but, on the other hand, as Murdo Fraser, Jeremy Purvis, Rhona Brankin and others in the chamber pointed out, the SNP is setting up local government to be the fall guy for its broken promises. The cabinet secretary's sole argument seemed to be to decry those who complain, such as the 75 teachers at Gleniffer high school, and to accuse the Opposition parties of scaremongering. She was unable to point to a single success or achievement of her Administration. However, she intervened later to try to claim success in West Lothian, until my colleague Mary Mulligan pointed out that the SNP had achieved the class size target in a school with a total roll of 23.
Even though the cabinet secretary and her team are expected to show leadership on teacher recruitment and workforce planning, they are happy to entice hundreds of bright young graduates into the teaching profession while presiding over local authority cuts, which will mean that posts are lost and that there are no jobs for those probationers. Mr Ingram dismissed that issue as "rubbish".
Does the member acknowledge that the bulk of the education budget is in the local government settlement, which went up under this Administration after years of going down under Labour?
Such rewriting of history by the SNP is incredible. We had real-terms increases in education budgets every year under Labour and class sizes came down—we delivered lower class sizes. However, the cabinet secretary just says, "It's not our fault; it's all up to local government."
I would be surprised if any constituency MSP had not received a letter from a probationer teacher. However, in case some have not had a letter, I refer them, and the minister, to the website of The Times Educational Supplement, which lists the experiences of probationer teachers; I will quote a few examples. One probationer said:
"there are two posts advertised for the school I currently work in and I found out last week that there were almost 300 applicants for those 2 posts".
Another said:
"I researched the job situation before doing the PGDE but I didn't think it would be quite as desperate as it is".
A third probationer said:
"if all else fails I hear they're looking for teachers in Dubai".
Dubai is not a country that the SNP normally quotes as being in the crescent of success—or whatever it is called.
Last week, in answer to a parliamentary question that I had asked, the minister suggested that she was taking action at last and said that Joe Di Paola would be heading up a working group. However, she is yet to tell Parliament when that group will meet, who is on it, whether it will be accountable to Parliament and, more important, what timescale she has set for it to make recommendations—in other words, what she will do to ensure that the jobs are there. I am delighted that the minister is taking action to talk about the problem, but I suggest that teachers are looking for a little more in the way of delivery.
My problem could be that I still regard the promises that the SNP made to the electorate as commitments that the SNP might wish to keep. The truth appears to be that the SNP has no real intention of delivering on its pledge on class sizes. It is difficult to see how anyone can trust the Administration when ministers refuse to say how much implementation of the pledge will cost and the First Minister and his cabinet secretary contradict each other directly on when it will happen.
The SNP has failed to express any vision for education. It borrows the language of social democracy when it suits it, but it fails to deliver on the funding or the policy decisions to back that up. Anxiety and frustration are mounting among people from directors of education to deputy heads and from experienced teachers to trainees.
The Parliament has sent a simple message to the SNP Administration this morning: it should face up to its ministerial responsibilities and deliver on its promises.