School Education (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The procedure that we will follow for stage 3 of the School Education (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill will be the same as that for the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill. The bill is SP Bill 37A. There are only two amendments. Amendment 1 is grouped with amendment 2.
Section 1—Placing requests: children under school age
I will take amendment 2 first, because it is straightforward. Amendment 2 is consequential to amendment 1 and introduces the concept of a "qualifying" child. The new definition of a qualifying child therefore requires to appear elsewhere in the bill and that is the reason for amendment 1.
For the benefit of members who were not present, I should explain what happened in the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. There was a unanimous vote in favour of an amendment lodged by Mike Russell. That left the minister defeated. The challenge handed down to me was to go away and find new wording and to propose that new wording at stage 3. That is what has been done.
There were two challenges. One was to reach agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; the other was to simplify section 1. It is fair to say that we dealt with the first challenge successfully and we have done our best with the second. The wording of the bill and of amendment 1 are complex because of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, particularly section 32 of that act. From our work on the bill, we know that our ability to amend legislation is restricted. That applies to section 2, which deals with the position of assistant head teacher. Other amendments were sought, but they were not allowed because they were outwith the scope of the bill. Similarly, an amendment that simplified the 1980 act would have been outwith the scope of the bill. In time, that sensible step will be taken because the 1980 act is extremely complex in respect of placing requests and the definition of school age.
We have done our best. We had a meeting with COSLA and several senior legal officials from different local authorities. The meeting had to be co-ordinated with the diaries of those people so, unfortunately, it was held on a Monday, which is a constituency day for MSPs. For that reason, members of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee were unable to attend. It was important to go ahead with the meeting because we had to redraft legislation, which takes time. Our proposed redrafted wording was still complex and difficult to understand, so a further redraft was done at the end of last week. Although someone who picks up amendment 1 for the first time will find it difficult to understand instantly, it is significantly better than it was before.
We reached a clear agreement with COSLA, which was confirmed by Helen Law in her letter of 17 December to the members of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. COSLA's main concern was about placing requests for children who are not yet at school and are not of school age. The concern was that in certain circumstances a request for such a child could lead to a demand for immediate entry into a school. It was not the intention to allow early entry into a school. We wanted to make it clear that a request in those circumstances applies only from the next school entry date. The proposed new section 28A(3F) covers that.
The complexity is much to do with the 1980 act, particularly section 32. I will try to be bold and explain the three new definitions of a qualifying child, which are set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the proposed new section 28A(6). After I run through them briefly, I will stop. Paragraph (a) is straightforward—the definition of a qualifying child is
"a child of school age".
The definition in paragraph (b) is a child who is not yet five years old, so is not of school age, but who has started at a primary school. Paragraph (c) relates to a child who is under school age—but not a rising five, which falls under paragraph (b)—whose parents want to make a placing request for the child to start school on the first start date after the child has become four and a half or more. Such a child would be entitled to start school. We have tried to keep it simple by creating the three definitions. Paragraph (c) is complex because it refers to
"subsections (1) and (2) of section 32 of this Act for the purposes of subsection (6)".
I could try to give more detail on that if members wish. [Members: "No."] This morning is perhaps not the occasion for that detail.
Will the minister be helpful and also explain the answer to the Schleswig-Holstein question?
I thank Mr Monteith for that offer. I will, however, swerve beyond that and say simply this: we are committed to ensuring that a simple, clear explanation is given not only to councils and individual schools, but to parents and pupils themselves. The proposed legislation applies to older pupils, who would be well able to understand some of its consequences, if not all its complexities.
My commitment to the Parliament is to ensure that that simple, clear, plain-English explanation is prepared over the coming weeks and is available as soon as possible in the new year. The importance of passing the bill is that it should correct the problem with the current placing requests legislation in time for the start of the school term in August 2002. That will mean that placing requests should be received from the early part of the new year.
I move amendment 1.
I shall be even briefer than the minister. It is important to remember that the purpose of the bill, particularly of section 1, is to correct a problem that arises from the way the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 was drafted. One would have hoped that the bill was correct and would overcome the problem. It is regrettable to note what the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People said in his letter to the committee, dated this week. The letter reads:
"We accept that the law on this point"—
being the same points to which the minister has just referred—
"is unclear and that the Bill as introduced did not take account of this concern."
It is regrettable that the drafting of the bill as introduced did not correct the problem. One would have thought that that would be right, given that it was the sole objective of section 1.
The importance of what happened in committee is that, having heard evidence from COSLA and having seen evidence from local authorities, it accepted that a problem remained. It was unfortunate that, at that stage, the minister was not prepared to accept those difficulties or to enter into dialogue about them and try to get things right. That is why, I think uniquely, all committee members voted for an amendment that I lodged. I do not expect that to happen again, but it did happen—because the committee wanted to see the problem got right. It was in fact COSLA's victory—a victory for an organisation that had come forward with genuine concerns and that wanted to be listened to.
However, I pay tribute to the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People. Having got a bloody nose on that occasion and having defended the indefensible—extremely well, I have to say, and despite the fact that his civil servants looked extremely unhappy—he did everything thereafter absolutely right. I commend him for that. He met representatives of COSLA, he lodged two amendments that actually work and he consulted extensively to ensure that they were acceptable—extensively even until the last conversation he and I had on the matter last Monday, when I was speaking on a mobile phone while buying a cheese roll in a baker's shop in Lochgilphead. I hope that that was not obvious to the minister at the time.
I am very grateful for the work that the minister and his civil servants have done to get section 1 to the stage at which it should have been when the bill was introduced. We now have a solution that we would not have had if we had passed the bill unamended.
It is important to note that another objection to the bill was voiced by local authorities. There was a fear that section 2, although necessary, does not cope with the issue of assistant principal teachers in schools and the McCrone agreement. The purpose of section 2 is to ensure that, in removing the post of assistant head teacher—I declare an interest, as my wife is one—it is not necessary to advertise deputy head teachers' posts, because that would clog up the entire system. That change is consequential to the McCrone agreement.
There are fears in schools and among the unions and local authorities that a similar change is required with regard to the abolition of the post of assistant principal within departments. There is concern that if that is not done, the McCrone agreement will be implemented in a way that the unions will not recognise as what they agreed to. We have the minister's assurance—I hope that he will reiterate it in his summing up—that that is not the case. Let us hope that it is not. Otherwise, we will have to return with a second amendment bill to change that part of education legislation.
There will be no objections from Scottish National Party members to the two amendments, nor will there be objections to the principles of the bill. This should have been a quick, simple matter, but it has become slightly more complicated than it needed to be. I finish, uncustomarily—as it is Christmas—by paying tribute to the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People for having got it right in the end.
I intend to make an even briefer contribution than Mike Russell's cheesy speech. I wish to put on record my support for the two amendments and my thanks to the local authorities—Glasgow City Council and the City of Edinburgh Council in particular—and to COSLA for their sterling work in pursuing this matter.
Our concern at stage 1 was that there were two, opposing, views on whether the bill met the requirements of amending the existing legislation successfully. As has already been said, it was due to the committee's perseverance that doubt remained. We put forward the unanimous view that the way to achieve change was to amend the bill, which forced the minister to return with his stage 3 amendments. I pay tribute to the sporting nature in which the minister has accepted that. We intend to support both amendments and the bill as a whole.
I intend to be equally brief. Having taken the unprecedented step of supporting a Mike Russell amendment, I am grateful that the minister has come to the chamber with these amendments. The bill has involved a mishmash of mistakes. As Mike Russell correctly stated, they arose out of earlier bad drafting of what became the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000. Members will appreciate why the committee became sceptical when people said, "Yes, but the same people who told us it was right last time, but got it wrong, are the ones telling us it's right this time." COSLA told us again that we had got it wrong.
I think that we have moved the debate forward, but I ask the minister for some clarification on amendment 1. I have a constituency problem relating to the proposed new section 28A(6), particularly nursery classes and nursery education. Some people are moving their children into nursery placements in areas where they will not subsequently send them to school, because of their employment perspectives. That is causing problems for children who would go to local nursery schools but cannot gain places in them. I would be grateful for clarification of the effects of the bill in that regard. I hope that it does not reinforce the current position whereby people cannot progress through nursery into school, which is very important in some of our most rural communities where we have managed to roll out nursery provision.
I support the amendments and I hope that we can support the bill.
I have little to add; members' points have all been well made.
On Karen Gillon's final point, however, I would say that the wording of the bill intends to make it clear that placing request legislation does not apply to nursery schools or nursery classes. We are dealing only with children who are going to attend primary school. Once they are attending primary school, and right through their school career—
Will the minister take an intervention on that point?
Surely.
Does the minister accept that that matter requires further consideration? We are rolling out nursery provision to enable children to attend nurseries in their local communities, not to have them forced out of those places by people who are pursuing other objectives?
I fully understand Karen Gillon's point. I will give this undertaking: the position of nursery children will be referred to in the clear, simple explanation that we will prepare for local authorities and schools, which will also be available for parents and pupils who are interested in placing requests.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.