Plenary, 15 Nov 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, November 15, 2001

Official Report 658KB pdf

---

School Education (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2275, in the name of Jack McConnell, on the general principles of the School Education (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. I ask members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

I welcome the opportunity to move the motion to approve the general principles of the School Education (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.

The bill is short. As its title suggests, it will amend existing legislation to deal with two matters. The first matter is rectifying what is called an unintended consequence of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, which removed the statutory right to a placing request from some parents who would otherwise have been eligible to make one.

The second matter is abolition of the grade of assistant head teacher to pave the way for the implementation of a simplified career structure for the teaching profession, as outlined in the agreement in "A Teaching Profession for the 21st Century". That agreement received support from all parties in the Parliament earlier this year and was endorsed overwhelmingly by the teaching profession and employers alike.

Most important of all will be the benefits that the bill will bring to Scotland's young people. Members may wish to note that in the report that it issued this week, the Education, Culture and Sport Committee recommended approval of the principles of the bill. Therefore, the bill should be non-controversial, although points of detail will be discussed.

I will go into a little more detail on the two issues that the bill deals with. It is important that we adopt the bill quickly, to enable parents to make placing requests for children in time for the school term that begins in August 2002.

Let me explain that point in a bit more depth. The policy intention behind the amendment made in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 was to make it clear that parents have no statutory right to submit a placing request for children under school age. In other words, there is no automatic right to a school place for children under four years and 6 months of age. The education authority could consider a request, but it would not trigger the normal placing request requirements.

The intention in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 was not correctly reflected in the statute. It is fair to say that that has resulted in considerable confusion and concern for local authorities, education departments and parents. At present, parents have a statutory right to make a placing request only if their child's fifth birthday has fallen by the time the child starts his or her primary 1 class in the August of any given year. Roughly speaking, that excludes half the pupils who have the right to start school, because a child can start school when they reach four years and 6 months of age. That was not the Executive's policy intention, nor, I am certain, was it the intention of the Scottish Parliament. I do not think that any of us consider that situation tenable.

As I said earlier, many of the children who start their primary 1 class each August are under five years old, but they are eligible to start school because their fifth birthday falls before the following March. Children can start school at any stage in the school year, providing that the child's birthday falls before the end of February. In certain circumstances, parents have the right to defer a child's entry. That is a separate issue. The basic principle is that, if a child's birthday falls in the period from the August start date to the end of February, the child has the right to start school.

It is only right that children of four years and 6 months of age have an equal right to a placing request as have their five-year-old fellow classmates. Education authorities and members of the Scottish Parliament have asked for the matter to be rectified. The Executive has concluded that a legislative amendment, as set out in the bill, is the best way of doing so as quickly as possible. We could have addressed the situation through guidance or another form of advice, but we believe that moving to legislation as quickly as possible is the correct way to proceed.

The legislative change that is proposed in section 2 of the bill allows for the abolition of the assistant head teacher grade—that is part of the McCrone agreement. Existing assistant head teachers will be assigned to the grade of deputy head teacher by means of what is called a job-sizing exercise. That is an important element of the work necessary to introduce the new career structure for the teaching profession that was agreed earlier this year by teachers organisations, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Executive. The bill deletes from statute all references to assistant head teachers and suspends the appointment procedures that are outlined in sections 11 and 15 and in schedule 2 of the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988.

Without following the proposed course of action, we would trigger existing selection and appointment procedures. That would demand a significant amount of time and would result in unnecessary bureaucracy for local authorities and school boards. In turn, that could delay the efficient introduction of the new career structure. We specified that the suspension should be for the duration of the job-sizing exercise. We expect that to end in August 2003.

Members will know that a consultation paper, including a draft bill, was issued on 5 July 2001. That document was circulated to all educational and other organisations that may have an interest in those detailed areas.

In advance of the publication of the consultation paper, members of the bill team met the Scottish School Boards Association to discuss the proposed changes to school board legislation. Agreement was reached on the proposed changes. The 26 consultees who sent in a written response welcomed the proposed measures. Those responses were predominantly from local authorities and teachers organisations. Some issues of detail were raised; indeed, those issues were debated in some depth by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee when it discussed the general principles of the bill with the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, Jack McConnell, recently. I have no doubt that those issues will be discussed again today. An appropriate reassurance can be provided in each case. It is for those reasons that I am pleased to commend the general principles of the School Education (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the School Education (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.

I declare an interest, as my wife is one of the people who will be affected by the legislation. She is an assistant head teacher and will disappear—not physically, but in terms of her title.

I am sorry that Mr McConnell is not here today as it would have given us an opportunity to bid him farewell in—who knows?—his last role as Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs. As he was the minister who presented the bill to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and answered the committee's questions, I am surprised and disappointed that he has not come today to carry on with the task.

I want to address three issues, the first of which is the drafting. Nobody appears to have seen the problem with the previous bill—it went past all of us. Mr Monteith is nodding sagely. Even the eagle-eyed among us did not notice the difficulty, although its results quickly became apparent. I had an early case, which arose in South Ayrshire.

There is a general point about drafting that needs to be addressed. The nature of the way in which ministers and civil servants approach the issue of drafting when talking to committees, particularly at stage 2, or at stage 3 in the chamber, is confrontational. There is a defensiveness about the drafting of any legislation. The shortage of parliamentary civil servants who can assist members with drafting issues is severe, as a result of which ministers and the Parliament are in the hands of civil servants. It is obvious that drafting mistakes were made.

There is another worrying case in the same bill. I am glad to see John Farquhar Munro here because, during the debate on the Standards in Scotland's Schools Bill, he and I proposed an amendment—amendment 34—on Gaelic education. It was resisted by the then Deputy Minister for Children and Education, Peter Peacock, who said:

"Amendment 34 seeks to place duties on ‘education authorities', in the plural, yet authorities, in the plural, are not a recognised legal entity. It is therefore not possible to place a duty on them."—[Official Report, 7 June 2000; Vol 7, c 23.]

I presume that that was a civil service instruction, on which the minister was briefed.

Subsequent research reveals that the Standards in Scotland's Schools Bill contained 22 references to education authorities in the plural. Five of its sections included the words "Education authorities shall". It was therefore a combative and defensive attack—presumably by the civil servants who had drafted it—on an attempt to amend the bill, the basis of which turned out to be completely untrue. I exonerate Mr Peacock from any charge of misleading the chamber, but it illustrates the way in which civil servants, in briefing their ministers, prepare to do battle in the chamber against reasoned discussion of bills and the way they are drafted.

That combative nature unfortunately showed itself in the committee's discussion of the School Education (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. As noted in the Official Report of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, Mr McConnell said with regard to COSLA's reservations about the bill, particularly the section on placing requests:

"There is no support in the Executive at a professional level for the view that has been expressed."—[Official Report, Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 23 October 2001; c 2678.]

That is not the question that Mr McConnell was asked, and it is not the question that we should ask here, but if education authorities—without any axe to grind—and COSLA still have reservations about the way in which the bill is drafted and about what may happen when seeking placing requests, it is important that those concerns are addressed. It is not important to defend the amour-propre of civil servants or the words that appear on the purple page of the published bill; it is important, for heaven's sake, at the second attempt, to get it right. I therefore appeal to whoever is the minister—it may even be Mr Stephen—to enter into constructive dialogue with the committee at stage 2 about the exact drafting of the section on placing requests. We cannot afford to get it wrong a second time.

There are genuine questions about whether the section on McCrone goes far enough. The McCrone job-scoping exercise may have to go further and deal with principal teachers. Although the bill deals with deputy heads and deputy principals, principal teachers in departments will be excepted by the job-scoping part of the McCrone exercise, and the statutory obligations relating to their appointment must be addressed. It would be best to consult committee members and members of the Parliament about the exact detail of that exercise at stage 2, rather than entering into an unnecessary battle.

The bill restores the status quo only in terms of placing requests. It is not a revolution and there is no new thinking. It simply restores the status quo as we believed it to be. There are big questions about the placing of young children in schools. There are questions about whether we in Scotland have the appropriate starting age for school, about the transition from nursery to primary education, about whether there should be rolling enrolment in primary schools and about whether the old concept of having a cut-off date is still relevant. All those questions are worthy of debate. The bill does not and cannot address them and we should not lose sight of the fact that what this bill does is tidy up legislation and make allowances for the McCrone settlement. We are not progressing ideas in education a whit. We should return to the chamber to do that.

Those points aside, I and my party colleagues have been pleased to play an important part in the early stages of the bill and we will continue to do that. I do not think that the bill will detain the chamber or the committee for long, but I hope that when we consider it at stages 2 and 3 we will take on board fully the views of local authorities and of COSLA and will make absolutely certain that we make no further mistakes. Perhaps the Parliament will also take on board the fact that drafting is a matter that we should all be involved in, rather than something that should be the focus of another war between the Executive and the Parliament.

I am pleased to be able to give my party's support to the School Education (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. It is vital that the unfortunate error in the wording of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 does not deny the statutory right of parents of children just below school age to make a placing request. It is right that the bill be used to allow for the adjustments to existing legislation that are required following the McCrone pay and conditions settlement.

I attended the Education, Culture and Sport Committee when it took oral evidence and considered written evidence. Having considered the matter, I have only one question for the minister. Can he assure me that the rights of parents of children commonly known as rising fives will be accommodated in the bill? We had an assurance from the minister when the committee first took evidence but, as Mike Russell said and as is mentioned in the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing, evidence from the City of Edinburgh Council, Glasgow City Council and COSLA raised doubts. It is fair to say that, even after questioning, those doubts remained. Mr McConnell said that a further statement could be made on the matter. If it can be shown to his satisfaction that the problem of rising fives will not be solved by the bill, will the minister introduce amendments at stage 2 or will he accept amendments from members of the committee?

As Mike Russell has dealt adequately with my other points, there is no need to detain the Parliament any further. It would not be good for children and parents of Scotland—or for the Parliament—if a further drafting error was made. It would do only damage if we had to pass another bill on another occasion to correct any defects in this bill. If we make further mistakes and require further legislation because legislation has been rushed through Parliament and amendments that seek to improve bills have not been accepted, the case for a second chamber will become irrefutable. The prospect of more Scottish politicians is frightening.

We support the bill.

The bill is not large; it covers little more than one side of A4. It is not complex—its objectives are straightforward—nor is it contentious, but it is important. The bill will enable parents of children aged between four years six months and five years to make placing requests to start primary school and will enable existing assistant head teachers to be regraded as deputy head teachers without following advertisement and appointment procedures.

The issue of placement age arises from changes introduced by the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000. The School Education (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill seeks to restore the situation that existed with regard to children's ages before that act was passed. I drew the minister's attention to the issue when the Education, Culture and Sport Committee considered the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill and I welcome the fact that this bill tidies up the loose ends created by that legislation.

The School Education (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill will restore parents' right to make placing requests for children who qualify as being of school age on the school commencement date in August because their fifth birthday falls before the following March.

In general, the bill has been well received by local authorities, which have made submissions in its favour. As we have already heard, COSLA expressed concerns about the bill's wording. I agree with Mike Russell that we must ensure that amendments are made and that the wording is right so that such a bill does not need to come before Parliament again. I urge the minister to respond to that point.

I also note that special educational needs are not addressed in the bill and ask the minister to make a statement on the matter. Indeed, Jack McConnell agreed to do so at a meeting of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. As for the restructuring of posts, it is planned that assistant head teachers will be redesignated as deputy head teachers and that there will no longer be a post of assistant head teacher.

The School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 stipulates that when a new post is created, it must be advertised, but that will not be the intention of the restructuring that will commence next year. The situation needs to be put right. Jobs that already exist are being performed by incumbents who are already all but in the posts; it is simply a question of redesignating the posts. The bill also acknowledges that. The readvertisement of posts would be unnecessary and costly.

Subject to the assurances that are sought on the bill's wording, particularly on the issue of special educational needs, I commend the bill to the chamber on behalf of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.

I see that we are all queuing up to speak in this debate.

It is good to see so many of my old colleagues from the Education, Culture and Sport Committee; it is just like a reunion. It has been mentioned that the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 has had the unintended consequence of restricting the right of children under five to placing requests. As one of the original members of the committee, I am happy to do my penance this morning. [Members: "Afternoon!"]

Members will appreciate that the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 was the first taste of legislation for many of us who had entered Parliament. We were all new boys and girls. With hindsight, I see that there are further changes to the act that we were unable to make at the time but that I would like to make now. Despite the Executive's subsequent measures to address the issues of sustainable development and Gaelic-medium education—which Mike Russell referred to—we all missed an opportunity with the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000.

Placing requests were a third issue that we discussed briefly at the time. The sting has gone out of the debate nationally, mostly because local authorities have tried to make the system work better, but the issue is still big in my Eastwood constituency. There are up to 1,000 placing requests each year, only two thirds of which are settled to the satisfaction of parents and pupils.

Many families feel denied and frustrated by the system and to put 1,000 young people through the process cannot be healthy. Choosing a school is an anxious time for all involved and is often seen—rightly or wrongly—as a life-shaping or career-shaping decision. For those who are unsuccessful, the decision leaves dissatisfaction that can do a pupil no good as he or she proceeds with their education.

The costs and time involved in processing requests—far too many of which end up in the sheriff courts—must provide grounds for concern at a time when government at all levels is looking to make efficiencies. The system needs to be improved and overhauled. That may not require further legislation, but direction from central Government would be welcome.

Many improvements that have been made have come from local authorities themselves. I give the example of East Renfrewshire Council from two weeks ago, although I will not go into detail. To avoid unnecessary conflict and misunderstanding, my local council has further qualified the rules governing catchment areas and feeder primaries. The rule changes had to be tested in the courts, but I hope that they will bring greater clarity and certainty to the process. Parents and pupils will be in full possession of the facts at all stages of a child's education and will be able to make an informed choice as a result. They continue to enjoy the right to choose which school to attend, but they are aware of the criteria on which their placing request will be judged.

I mentioned that my local authority has tested those rules in the court, but it would be fairer on all concerned and certainly less costly for each individual council if national guidelines or the proposed legislation were used to create a common set of rules throughout Scotland.

Although I support placing requests, we should not pretend that they do not come at a cost. There should be an element of choice and no one should be forced to attend a school that they do not want to attend, but not everyone can exercise that choice. For example, how many families without a car exercise their right to choose? If all parents who are most likely to play an active role or take an interest in their child's school opt to go elsewhere, the result and the cost can be a sink school with low esteem that fails the local population. What infuriates staff, pupils and parents at schools when pupils choose to exercise their right is the ignorance on which decisions are sometimes based. I want reforms that take the confrontation out of the placing request system and improvements to the dissemination of information.

It has been suggested to me that no parent should be able to put in a placing request until they have visited their local school and spoken to the head of the school or the staff. A school's reputation can be made or broken on the back of rumour, half-truth, innuendo and myth that have no basis in fact. Pupils who would almost certainly perform better in their local school get carted off to inappropriate and alien establishments to be hothoused through an exam-driven system rather than developed as fully rounded individuals and citizens in their own neighbourhoods.

A number of other issues should be raised that may not be dealt with in the bill, but the minister should consider them.

My final son was brought up by his two parents and his two older brothers, so he was about 25 by the time he was four. In the opinion of his nursery school teacher at the time, at four years and five months old, he would have been perfectly able to go to school. The new system will not change that for people in a similar situation.

I was interested when Nicol Stephen said that we are reverting to a simpler system of administration in education. I have a sense of déjà vu. Assistant head teachers were introduced when I was an ambitious and impecunious principal teacher. I thought that I might be able to go directly from principal teacher to head teacher and avoid the role of depute head—in those days, that was possible. To my absolute dismay and disgust, the post of assistant head teacher was introduced. Obviously, that was a result of post-war expansion and raising the school-leaving age. I applied for the first diet of posts in my school, failed and never applied again, so I managed to miss that out.

Head teachers enjoy some prestige and status in the public eye and in the eyes of their staff too if they are really successful—although that is pushing things a bit. Depute heads have the privilege of running the school in the head's absence, to compensate them for the drudgery that fills the rest of their days, doing all the jobs that the head does not want to do. AHTs are further down the pecking order—not far enough up the system to enjoy much prestige, but far enough down the management chain to inherit a plethora of jobs, some of which are vital and others which are created by administrative bean counters further up the system. Sometimes, jobs are mind-blowingly time-consuming and dull. Assistant head teachers fulfil a necessary function in the system but the number of pupils that triggered their introduction has fallen radically and the system must be changed.

I do not suppose that anyone will mind if I mention four assistant head teachers by name and let my personal knowledge of and thanks to them represent, in a modest way, the gratitude of the Scottish Parliament to the holders of a post that is to be consigned to history.

The late Mae Johnston at Greenock Academy moved from being woman adviser—an old-fashioned category—to assistant head teacher. One of the old school and respected by all, she was in my history department and, while outranking me in the management system, played to perfection her subordinate role in my department. She had a difficult role to play that is not often understood by people outside education. In Easterhouse, Jimmy Allan was conscientious and I always failed to meet his high standards of punctuality; Miller Frondigoun was the epitome of compassion; and Dugald MacIntyre had a laconic sense of humour and a dedication to piping, which he practised at lunch time two floors above my office. I give my personal thanks to those individuals and, in so doing, I thank every other assistant head teacher in Scotland, appreciated or unappreciated by those around them.

On the report, I am sure that all assistant head teachers will be happy to be upgraded to the status of deputy head teacher without interview, as I would be if I were in their shoes.

I have come to the chamber before with so-called technical or drafting bills from the Local Government Committee. They are non-controversial but necessary.

When I was a councillor, many parents came to my surgeries with problems relating to the legislation on placing requests. An attempt was made to clarify the situation in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 but, as we have heard this afternoon, the situation is still woolly and unclear. The 1980 act appears to have been written by a Philadelphia lawyer—there is amendment after amendment after amendment and only a Philadelphia lawyer could understand it. It was often difficult for parents to place a child in the same school as their sibling and that difficulty was not taken into account. Members can imagine what that meant for the parents.

An amendment to the 1980 act meant that the local authority had a duty to place a child in a school requested by parents, with some exceptions, and the right of appeal was included. However, no particular age was stated, which led to even more confusion. Reading the reports, we can tell that the sheriffs were confused—perhaps that amendment was written by the same Philadelphia lawyer.

Most of the appeals were based on the interpretation of the word "child". After the act was amended again, there was still confusion because of the use of the term "school age", which disqualified children who were under five. The situation needed to be cleared up and that is what we are doing today. The bill is, as I said, a small but beautiful technical bill. It will affect many children and parents and is therefore necessary. I hope that it will clarify matters for councils and parents.

Another aspect of the bill relates to the post of assistant head teacher, which will cease to exist. The post will be subsumed into the post of deputy head teacher. That will mean that local authorities will have more flexibility in their arrangements for promoted staff in schools and that some of the existing restrictions will be removed.

The report, "A Teaching Profession for the 21st Century" provided a new career structure to be implemented and the bill relates to that. The McCrone report recommended those changes in structures in schools.

The Education, Culture and Sport Committee's report stated that the committee was concerned that the placing request part of the bill might not achieve the stated objective because it might not be as clear as we hoped that it would be. However, in his evidence to the committee, the minister said that he believed the provisions in the bill to be technically correct. The minister undertook to inform the local authorities of that and to reassure them with a statement of clarification. Like others, I am not absolutely happy with that. That issue needs to be revisited, given the history of this part of the bill. Mike Russell has said that as well and I am sure that amendments to do that will be lodged at stage 2. Given the history of this part of the bill, let us hope that the amendments can clear up the situation. I am a wee bit dubious about using the word "history" today but I am glad that I got past it without making a terrible mistake.

The minister also said that he believed that local authorities were adequately funded to deal with the outcomes of the McCrone settlement. He indicated, however, that, at stage 2, he would return to the issue of the advertising of the post of principal teacher. I know that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has raised that with the committee. Given the confusion in the past bills, let us hope that we will once and for all clarify for parents the provisions on placing requests. The McCrone recommendations are good. The settlement involved a lot of hard work by teaching professionals, trade unions and the Scottish Executive. The new bill will start the process of implementing that settlement. I urge members to agree the general principles.

As the Conservative local government spokesman, I am pleased to contribute to the debate. The bill, as members have already said, endeavours to resolve a problem in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, which unintentionally removed the statutory right of some parents with children just below school age to make a placing request. The bill should restore that right to parents of those children who qualify as being of school age on the school commencement date in August because their fifth birthday falls before the following March. We welcome the provisions in the bill to allow the implementation of the McCrone agreement and are pleased to support the motion.

I will not detain members too long. Given the tenor of the debate so far and the fact that there are no amendments, it is obvious that this is an occasion on which all MSPs are able to support the general principles of a bill. The bill is not designed to alter the law in any profound manner but to clarify an issue that arises from the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 and to bring the legislation into line with the McCrone settlement, which was brokered earlier this year.

I am sure that we all agree that such provisions are not the stuff of passionate debate. Nevertheless, the provisions clarify the law on placing requests for children under school age and recognise a particular ramification of the pay and conditions agreement between the teaching unions and local authorities that was arrived at after intensive negotiation.

The proposed abolition of the post of assistant head teacher is a necessary provision. It will allow the full implementation of the McCrone settlement and thus permit the greater latitude that is necessary for the arrangements for promoting staff in schools. It will also ensure that some of the existing restrictions can be removed. I am aware that the minister indicated at the Education, Culture and Sport Committee that the national advertising of principal teacher posts and the assimilation of assistant principal teachers into the new structure would be returned to at stage 2. Those issues do not affect the general principles of the bill. It therefore makes good sense to return to them at a later stage.

I know that Mr Russell also raised concerns at the committee regarding the possible financial and operational impact of the abolition of the post of assistant principal teacher, especially in rural areas. As there is no amendment from the SNP, I take it that Mr Russell is content with the assurances that he received from the minister at the committee that the McCrone settlement had strong support from the education sector, and that central to the agreement was an understanding with local authorities, including those that cover rural areas, that the additional funding would be adequate. The minister also offered the view that the new flexible structures would be of special benefit to small rural schools. Again, that is all sensible, welcome and necessary.

The other area that the bill covers is placing requests. It deals with an overly bureaucratic, inflexible and unintended consequence of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, which prevents parents whose children start school slightly early from making the appropriate placing request. That is manifestly illogical. The bill will clear up that anomaly.

The bill may not be particularly exciting or newsworthy, but it is necessary and worth while. It exemplifies the way in which the devolved Parliament can deal directly with matters large and small that impact on the lives of the people of Scotland. I support the motion.

The minister will sum up at the end. I will give more of a summing-up speech than a speech for the middle of the debate. I will make several comments, but I will not take long.

I congratulate Kenneth Macintosh on what he said. He is still in the chamber. He gave a succinct summary of problems with placing requests. I have seldom heard them put better. I am sorry that Mike Russell has left the chamber. His comments were rather wide-ranging—we heard about Gaelic. Colin Campbell talked about piping. Mike Russell's description of the process does not match up with the way that I saw it when I was a member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. Of course amendments were lodged, but the process was not as confrontational as Mike Russell painted it.

The point that comes out of the debate is that it behoves all committee members to get their act together. We were, after all, new boys and girls then in terms of drafting and debating amendments. I would not say that my experience with the ministers or the civil servants was bad. I do not want that to be the general impression.

The bill puts two things right; it is as simple as that. As Bill Butler said, that has been done in our devolved Parliament in an open, accountable and thorough way. I suggest that that is different from what went before. Imagine if the matter had arisen at Westminster. There would not have been the type of discussion that we have had here today. When the bill gets to stage 2, there will be further examination of it.

I will conclude my remarks. I am on my feet in place of Ian Jenkins. It seems to be the style these days that Stone stands in when Jenkins or Lyon or someone else is away. I pledge the support of the Liberal Democrats for the bill and I commend it to the chamber.

I was a wee bit concerned when my colleague Ken Macintosh said in his contribution that this debate was like a reunion. I was reminded of the recent press coverage of friendsreunited.co.uk, which is a new website for those who wish to pay compliments to former teaching members, and who now find themselves creating lots of problems in the courts throughout the United Kingdom. I await my e-mail with interest. I will see if anything libellous is available there when I get back.

At the committee, people raised the sensitive and perhaps overly complex issue of the placing requests, which members have touched on. Our intention, which I hope that the ministerial team will address, is not to make that process any more complicated than it is already. We want to modify something that, as Mike Russell suggested, seems to have been a problem in the drafting. Mike Russell was right to touch on how we engage in that drafting process in a genuine partnership in which we offer our experience as committee members and civil servants bring an understanding that we should address seriously issues that local authorities and individuals who are involved in placing requests raise with us.

I hope that those issues will be addressed at stage 2 of the bill, although they might be addressed prior to that. We are in broad agreement with the intention of the bill to restore the right of parents to make placing requests for children who qualify as being of school age on the school commencement date in August. That is fine and worth while and we hope that the minister addresses the wording of that section in the bill, which has been noted by a number of members.

The other big issue that was a shared concern of all members of the committee was how to deal with the issue of AHTs. I was interested to hear Colin Campbell speak about the trajectory of his career, from his humble origin as a teacher—I understand—to principal teacher, deputy head teacher, assistant head teacher and head teacher. He has never looked—it is clear—at the byzantine rules for qualifying as a school janitor. If he tried to unravel those rules at a GMB union meeting, he would find them of greater complexity than any that he addressed on the issue of the definition of the AHT post in the bill.

We are broadly in agreement with the proposed deletion of the post of AHT and the issue of the advertising of senior posts. We welcome the fact that section 2 of the bill will remove unnecessary references in the 1988 Act to assistant head teacher. The knock-on effect of that debate is to open up further debates that we still need to have clarified by the ministers concerning the issue of the general advertising of other posts, particularly PT posts. We welcome the minister's commitment to try to return to that matter at stage 2. We should move forward in the spirit of openness and accountability, which is the characteristic theme that we seem to be debating at the moment.

It is difficult to make this issue interesting, but it is an important issue for the communities that we serve. Every member in the Parliament has probably had immense numbers of letters, particularly at school term time, not only about the suitability of schools that parents want their children to go to, but about the kind of arbitrary rules that are operated sometimes at the local authority or school level, or within learning communities, which many local authorities are developing. Anything that we can do to clarify that and to minimise that bureaucracy will be welcome.

The consensus of the committee members was that they welcome those developments and the tidying-up that is being proposed. However, we need to address one or two issues at stage 2. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee recommends that the general principles of the bill be agreed to.

The chamber is filling up, so word has obviously got out about the shortness of the debate. My colleagues Brian Monteith and Keith Harding have succinctly set out the Conservative position on the bill. It is open to me to waffle on for four minutes about matters tangential to the bill or to seek to emulate Colin Campbell, by name-checking my former teachers. Indeed, I met one of them earlier today. My maths teacher, Miss Forbes, who is down from Inverness on a trip, appeared in the public gallery. I shall therefore take the opportunity to name-check her. [Members: "Where is she?"] Sadly, she is no longer with us. [Laughter.]

The Scottish Conservatives agree with the general principles of the bill for the reasons set out by my colleagues. I shall not detain the chamber longer.

Before calling the next speaker, I indicate that it looks very likely that we will finish the debate early.

In contrast to many stage 1 speeches, those of this debate have confirmed that the School Education (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill should turn out to be a fairly straightforward piece of legislation, provided, as Mike Russell has said, that the Executive is prepared to listen and to become involved in constructive dialogue.

The intention of section 1 is immediately apparent. An unintended consequence of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 was to remove the right of parents to make placing requests for children who are aged four in August but whose birthday falls prior to the following March. The Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs is now aware of the concerns that interpretation of the current working might not bring the desired objective. In evidence to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, the minister is on record as saying that he is of the view that the bill is correctly worded. However, clarification of that is undoubtedly required at stage 2.

On section 2, we have no difficulty in agreeing to the suspension of the application of the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 for the purposes of the job-sizing exercise, which is part of the agreement encapsulated in "A Teaching Profession for the 21st Century". We endorse the continued involvement of school boards in the head teacher and deputy head teacher appointments for any new posts that are not part of the job-sizing exercise. Likewise, we have no objection to the removal of unnecessary references in the 1988 act to "assistant headteachers".

COSLA representatives pointed out that implementing the McCrone settlement as currently constituted will mean that any changes made to the principal teacher posts in the job-scoping exercise will require the posts to be nationally advertised. COSLA hopes that that will not be the case. If it were to be the case, that would be contrary to what anybody expected. It will severely reduce the flexibility to implement McCrone in a rational, consensual way, as well as increasing costs and introducing delay. Additionally, the requirement to advertise nationally is anomalous when compared with other local authority posts at the same level. Stage 2 must provide clarification on that, and one suggestion has been to delete section 87A of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.

Notwithstanding Bill Butler's remarks, I wish to mention the situation of rural authorities, as there are funding implications to the job-scoping exercise. Some rural authorities are saying that the agreement has given them some difficulties. I hope that the Executive will consider sympathetically that issue to allay those authorities' concerns.

I commend the assurance that the minister gave at the committee that the issue of recorded pupils and placing requests for them will be returned to and considered. A clear, reassuring statement on the legislative provisions in place would be welcomed by the families concerned, by local authorities, and, I suspect, by the Parliament.

I call Nicol Stephen to close for the Executive.

I welcome the high level of interest in my closing speech that is evident in the chamber. [Laughter.] That was not the case throughout this afternoon's debate.

Mike Russell's uncharacteristically uncharitable comments about the absence of the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs—which has now been remedied—would have been slightly more telling if Mr Russell had managed to stay in the chamber throughout the debate. However, I am happy to give the member the reassurance that he sought in relation to the drafting of the bill. That matter will be examined in an open and inclusive way. If additional reassurance can be given, it would be appropriate to do so.

Several issues of detail were raised in the debate. Cathy Peattie made a point about the application of placing request legislation to children who have a record of needs. The position of those children as regards placing requests is different from that of the children who would be covered by the legislation that we are considering today. Because of the particular circumstances of children with a record of needs, parents' statutory right to make a placing request for their children is not restricted to school-age children. We recognise that further clarification of the position of children with a record of needs would be beneficial. We are considering providing a clear statement that will accompany the bill, but will not be part of it, at later stages of the bill's passage.

I accept the assurance that Mr McConnell gave to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee that a statement of clarification would be provided, along with the assurance that the minister is giving now. However, Trish Godman made a very important point. It would be much better for the bill to be properly drafted and easily understood than for it to be accompanied by further documentation. Local authorities and others have expressed the view that it is possible to improve the drafting of the bill. I accept that this is a matter for debate, but members from all parties have indicated that they would rather have the bill properly drafted at stage 2 than have a statement of clarification or additional documentation provided.

I understand the point that Mike Russell makes. In the review of assessment that is currently under way, for example, our aim is to simplify matters, to make the position clearer to parents and to ensure that all children are treated in the same way. That seems not to be the case at the moment. I give the undertaking that we will consider the issue that Mike Russell has raised.

The Education, Culture and Sport Committee made reference to representations that had been made by two councils: City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council. Those authorities voiced concerns that section 1 of the bill as drafted does not accurately address the problem that we are trying to remedy and that, as a consequence, the Executive's policy intention may not be met. They questioned whether the provisions of the bill would allow parents to make placement requests for children under four years and six months.

We were aware of those representations and, following discussion with Executive solicitors, we remain of the view that the bill's provisions are technically correct. We intend to inform both the authorities concerned, and all other local authorities, of our interpretation of section 1 of the bill, with a view to reassuring them that the Executive's policy intention is met by the bill. We are confident that it is. However, if that proves not to be the case, we will consider the position further. I agree with Mr Monteith that clarity and certainty are important.

Another issue of concern is the position of principal teachers, as opposed to that of assistant head teachers. Some local authorities have suggested that it would be appropriate to suspend the requirement for the national advertisement of principal teacher posts, to facilitate the successful and timely completion of the job-sizing exercise. Some authorities have also suggested that such a suspension is necessary to address the possibility that some assistant principal teachers could ask for their posts to be job-sized to that of principal teacher and, if successful, assimilated to the new career structure for promoted staff. We believe that our approach to the post of principal teachers needs to be significantly different from our approach to that of assistant head teacher. Following the job-sizing exercise, the post of assistant head teacher will no longer exist, whereas the grade of principal teacher will remain as part of the new career structure.

Members have spoken about the position of assistant principal teachers. In August 2003 the assistant principal teacher grade will be abolished. The agreement clearly states that, for salary purposes, existing post holders will be placed on the new chartered teacher scale.

We have been advised that those matters do not require legislation. However, to assist the progress of the bill and the arrangements for the new career structure, and so that we can clarify and secure a shared understanding of the best way to take those matters forward, officials will follow up those points with our partners in the Scottish negotiating committee for teachers—in other words, with teachers organisations and with COSLA. None of the issues concerning school placing requests and the posts of principal teacher and assistant principal teacher affect the bill's general principles.

From the start, we have held the view that the School Education (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill is uncontroversial and straightforward. Everyone would agree that today's debate has reaffirmed that judgment. We are open to making detailed changes through amendments at stage 2. The responses to the consultation exercise that took place earlier this year were very positive and, in the main, the proposed legislative changes were welcomed. The proposals have also been welcomed by all parties in the chamber. I urge members to support the motion.