Plenary, 22 Jun 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, June 22, 2000

Official Report 747KB pdf

---

McCrone Report

The first item of business is a Scottish National Party debate on motion S1M-1027, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the McCrone report, and an amendment to that motion.

I will be as brief as I can.

Last September, when Sam Galbraith, the Minister for Children and Education, announced the establishment of the McCrone committee, he said:

"We will examine the committee's recommendations when they are passed to us. I am sure that all members will have a view on those arrangements and we will wish to discuss the matter at that time."—[Official Report, 22 September 2000; Vol 2, c 631.]

Because the minister has not afforded this Parliament the opportunity to have even a preliminary debate on the report of the McCrone committee, the SNP has decided to use some of its time to allow such a debate to take place.

Back in September, I was one of those people who admitted to being sceptical about the minister's motivation in setting up the committee. I suspected that it was more about getting the awkward problem of teachers' pay and conditions off his desk for a few months than about finding a genuine and long-term solution. Since then, I have waited to be proved wrong and to be convinced that the McCrone report would provide a basis for moving forward, for properly rewarding our teachers for the excellent work that they do, and for equipping Scottish education for the future.

I believe that the report of the McCrone committee provides us with that opportunity. I pay tribute to Gavin McCrone and his colleagues—they were not given an easy task, but they have come up with a set of recommendations that, in my view, point the way ahead. They have also made a number of telling observations about the state of our education system—observations that merit a response from the Executive. However, all that we have had so far from ministers is silence. Sam Galbraith is obviously so desperate not to break his silence that he has not even bothered to show up this morning for this debate.

Before Peter Peacock stands up to accuse me of not understanding how these things work, I should make it clear that I accept that the detail and the implementation of the McCrone report—in so far as it concerns teachers' pay and conditions of service—are a matter for negotiation between the Executive, teachers and local authorities. No one expects the Executive to pre-empt those negotiations by giving a line-by-line response to the report. The discussion and dialogue to which the Executive refers in its amendment is important. However, that does not prevent it from taking a view on the report's main conclusions and from telling the people of Scotland, who have footed the bill for the committee's deliberations, what that view is, instead of being struck dumb for fear of having to put its money where its mouth is.

Surely the Scottish Executive has an opinion on the report. The other parties to the negotiations—the unions and local authorities—have an opinion and have been happy to tell people what that is. Will the minister today tell us what his opinion is? After all, it was Sam Galbraith who established the committee, appointed its members and decided its remit. After nine months of deliberations and £500,000 of taxpayers' money, surely it is reasonable to expect that Sam Galbraith or his deputy has an opinion on whether the report is good, bad or indifferent.

On the day that the report was published, Sam Galbraith said that he needed time to consider the recommendations carefully. He has now had three weeks. I do not know how long it takes him to read a report, but after three weeks surely it is time for the rest of us to be told what he thinks.

Does Sam Galbraith think that the report is on the right track in what it says about teachers' pay, the structure of the profession, improving initial teacher education, the importance of continuing professional development, and the scandal of so many teachers being on short-term contracts? Does he agree with the committee that the increased demands on teachers arising from the social inclusion agenda are not being adequately resourced? Does he agree that the Executive needs to take effective action to deal with the problem of pupil indiscipline in schools? Does he agree that the number and nature of recent Government policy initiatives have substantially increased the burden on teachers, and that teachers feel that the amount of bureaucracy in teaching has grown beyond reasonable proportions? Does he agree with the committee when it questions whether all of that really adds value? Does he accept the view of the committee that, notwithstanding the negotiations about implementation, its report should be viewed as a whole, and that no part should be taken in isolation from the others?

Those are straightforward questions, which the minister can answer without in any way pre-empting the negotiations that will take place over the summer months. Why will not the minister answer those questions? Does not the Scottish public have a right to know what their Government thinks about a matter of such importance? Let us remember this point: the McCrone report does not just deal with teachers' pay and conditions of service and it does not just affect teachers and their employers; it is also about the learning conditions of our children. It affects every child and every parent in Scotland. They know how important it is. They know the opportunities that it provides for the education system and the dire consequences if those opportunities are squandered.

The kids and the parents will not be party to the negotiations, however. That is why they need to know the Executive's position. Will the Executive be negotiating to implement McCrone, or simply negotiating it away? The silence of the Executive gives rise to the suspicion that it is not committed to implementing McCrone, that those who thought that the setting up of the McCrone committee was a delaying tactic were right, and that what the Executive is now doing is simply delaying further. When the Executive, which unilaterally decided to set up the committee and unilaterally decided to abolish the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee against the wish of teachers, starts talking about genuine consultation and partnership through constructive dialogue, as it does in its amendment, one cannot help but get the feeling that an issue is being dodged.

That issue is the fact that, in the words of the McCrone report, the

"recommendations will require significant additional funds."

According to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the bill will be in excess of £400 million a year—a figure that I note from weekend press reports is not now disputed by the Executive. Will the minister today accept that that will be the bill? Will he also accept that that additional funding must come from the Scottish Executive and that local authorities, which this year were forced to impose education cuts to the tune of £23 million, cannot foot the bill? Does he agree with the COSLA president Norman Murray, who said that

"local authorities are not able to contribute anything. The money is just not there. If McCrone's recommendations are not funded centrally, then they cannot be implemented"?

Will the Executive tell the Parliament, Scotland's teachers, local authorities, parents and children how much money it will make available from central Government to fund the recommendations of the committee that it established? That is a simple question, which only the Executive can answer. Without the answer, what is the point in entering into negotiations when no party to those negotiations and no one outside those negotiations knows whether the money will be available to implement the outcome of the talks?

If the Executive is really committed to dialogue and discussion, it is about time that it started listening to the views of those with whom it will be negotiating. The Educational Institute of Scotland says:

"If this process is going anywhere there has to be money on the table. If there is no funding then this process is effectively dead."

Where is the funding? The Scottish Secondary Teachers Association said:

"There is no point in discussing this any further if the Executive is not going to agree to fund the recommendations."

How much money will be made available? COSLA said:

"We must know that we have the means to deliver on whatever is collectively decided."

I repeat the question: how much money will the Executive make available?

The message could not be clearer. The Executive must agree to fund McCrone, or McCrone will fail. If that happens, make no mistake about it, the failure will be Sam Galbraith's, Peter Peacock's and the Executive's. There is real will on the part of teachers and local authorities to make progress over the next few months.

The remaining question is whether the Scottish Executive shares that commitment. It is time for the Executive to break its silence and to put its weight and its money behind a process that has the potential to reward teachers and to equip Scottish education for the new millennium.

Let us hear some answers from the minister today. What does he think of McCrone, even in general terms? How much money will he provide to fund the proposals? Will he fund them in full? If not, how much is available? Let us ensure that the negotiations that the minister is asking people to enter into over the next few months are negotiations with meaning and not simply negotiations in a vacuum.

"Education, education, education" was a good election slogan. I remember the Minister for Health and Community Care—she is sitting beside Peter Peacock—as education spokesperson mouthing that slogan with almost tiresome regularity during the election campaign. I shall be charitable—it was a good slogan. However, the answers that the minister gives to the questions this morning will prove whether it was any more than a good slogan for the Executive.

Let us hear some answers from the minister today. Let us tell the people out there what the minister thinks of the process that the Executive set up and—crucially—whether the Executive is prepared, at long last, to put its money where its mouth is.

I move,

That the Parliament calls upon the Scottish Executive to publish its response to the report of the McCrone Committee of Inquiry into the Professional Conditions of Service for Teachers and to confirm what additional resources it will make available to local authorities to fund the committee's recommendations.

I do not like to be uncharitable, but I am afraid that once again we have heard from Nicola Sturgeon the Scottish National Party's complete inexperience of the real world of government and the extent of its irresponsibility about these issues.

The world that the Executive occupies is one where approaches to policy and decisions matter. It is not a world of posture or of gesture, which, I am afraid, is what characterises the SNP's world. We will not be drawn down the route suggested by the SNP. The teachers—and the pupils who depend on them—deserve better consideration from the Parliament than that suggested today. The position set out by Nicola almost inevitably contradicts the position that the SNP set out just a few months ago.

I will take this opportunity to outline the approach that the Executive has adopted—and is adopting—to achieve our objectives of having a well-motivated teaching profession, capable of attracting and retaining teachers for the whole of their career and serving the needs of our modern and ever-changing society.

Last year, in announcing that the independent inquiry would be set up, Sam Galbraith gave a commitment to consult all relevant parties on its recommendations before any decisions on implementation were made. The Executive treats its commitments seriously and honours them.

That is in stark contrast to the SNP. When Sam Galbraith announced the inquiry, Nicola Sturgeon questioned its very purpose. "Why have a committee at all?" she asked. "How can the minister justify the substantial cost to the taxpayer?" Well, predictably, we have another volte-face from the SNP. She now appears to support the outcome of the committee of inquiry that she so vigorously opposed in the past. She now demands—

Will the minister give way?

No, I will not give way.

She now demands that the Executive gives a commitment to fund the recommendations of the committee, which she thought entirely unjustified, before any of the detailed discussions with the key players have been undertaken. No doubt that is the approach that pervades the SNP and has brought it to the brink of financial ruin. It spends first, it discusses the volume of the spending later and it discusses the purpose of the spending even further down the road. That is an approach that makes the SNP completely unfit for government—that is why the Scottish people have never trusted it with government.

Will the minister give way?

No, I will not give way, as I have only a short time and I wish to get through this.

On 24 May, in response to a written question, Sam Galbraith said that, after the publication of the McCrone committee report on 31 May, we would enter a period of consultation with the relevant parties. He wrote, setting out his proposals on how to proceed, to each of those parties: the trade unions, the management side of the local authorities and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. Copies of his letters were placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre.

After we laid out our proposals for consultation, all the relevant parties signed up to them. We have been clear and consistent. The work of the McCrone committee and its conclusions require the detailed, careful and collective consideration of all those involved. When we say collective, we mean precisely that. When we say that we will consult, that is precisely what we will do.

Nevertheless, less than one month after the publication of the McCrone report, we are asked to break that commitment and to issue immediate pronouncements. That is not how the Scottish Executive does business.

With all due respect to the minister, I think that he is rather missing the point of the debate—I do not suppose that that will surprise anyone. No one is asking him to pre-empt the negotiations, but surely it is not too much to ask the Government to tell everyone involved in the negotiations, as well as the public, what the budget is. How much money is available to fund the outcome of the negotiations? Surely that is a basic starting point for all negotiations. That is a question that only he can answer, so why does not he stop prevaricating and answer it now?

That is another example of a question that confirms the inexperience of the SNP in these matters. Nicola Sturgeon is saying, "Don't pre-empt the negotiations, but please, Mr Minister, declare your hand on every point of detail in the report in advance." That is a ludicrous position and she knows it.

Six months ago, the Parliament asked us to continue working towards the objective of ensuring that there is a modern, adaptive and flexible mechanism for determining the professional conditions of service for teachers in Scottish schools. If we are to take that task seriously—and we do take it seriously—we must recognise that all parties must have the opportunity to consider the report and its recommendations in detail, to take time for reasoned discussion and reflection, and to talk to one another. We will not achieve our objective if we are rushed into premature decisions and conclusions. The Executive will resist that—we will not be bounced into that position to satisfy an agenda that has little to do with creating the quality of education in Scotland that we all want and that our children deserve.

We have begun the discussions and we are honouring our commitments. We are serious about the task of creating the world-class education system that Scotland deserves and of which all our people—teachers, parents and children—can be proud. We will not let crude opportunism deflect us from that task.

The approach that we are taking has the full support of the key parties. Only yesterday, the EIS issued a statement that said:

"we believe that there is very little scope for debate about McCrone at this time. We welcome the fact that commentators have refrained from discussing McCrone to date. It is very necessary that all of those concerned have the time to properly consider what we believe is a good Report . . . Time to consider is of particular importance to teachers . . . We appreciate the restraint shown by others which has allowed this breathing space".

Sadly, but predictably, that restraint has not been shown by SNP members. Their motivation and reasons for holding this debate are clear for all to see. Their approach should be clearly rejected.

I move amendment S1M-1027.1, to leave out from "calls upon" to end and insert:

"welcomes the Executive's approach to establish genuine consultation and partnership through constructive dialogue and mature consideration of the recommendations of the McCrone Report, and calls upon the Executive to maintain its progress towards the objective of securing a modern and flexible mechanism for determining the professional conditions of service for teachers in Scotland's schools as a critical determinant in establishing a world class reputation for the Scottish education system."

I humbly announce that the Conservatives will not be supporting the SNP motion today—no doubt that will please SNP members. If I may throw some of Nicola Sturgeon's words back at her, I will say that the reason that we will not support her motion is that we think that it is political posturing.

That will come as no surprise to anyone in this chamber who has heard the SNP contribution to the education debate over the past year. I hear a respectable position, which I am happy to argue with, from the Labour benches. I also hear a respectable position put forward by Ian Jenkins on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. However, when I listen to the SNP outlining its position on education, what I hear is the latest briefing from the EIS—or was it the latest briefing from the SSTA? In a debate on discipline, the SNP looks up the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers briefing, because that organisation is champing at the bit on discipline.

At times one has to wonder whether the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon are the fifth column for the teaching trade unions, so obviously do they think that the way in which to win the education debate is simply to talk about teachers and teaching. I heard Nicola Sturgeon's intervention in Peter Peacock's speech. If she thinks that one negotiates by showing one's hand, I would love to play poker with her. I have no doubt that, although the Conservatives may not win the votes in parliamentary debates, I would certainly win a game of cards with Nicola.

Although the McCrone report has been largely welcomed by the teaching sector, there are concerns about the costs and about who is expected to foot the bill. The size of the bill is another matter, as a variety of conflicting figures have been thrown in the air. Professor McCrone estimated the costs at £260 million—a figure that Sam Galbraith seemed to admit to COSLA might not be enough. Roy Jobson, the director of education on City of Edinburgh Council, estimated that the initiative could cost £25 million to implement in Edinburgh alone. Claims of scaremongering were made when COSLA estimated that costs could total £500 million over five years.

Brian Monteith may be talking about costs, but McCrone himself said that

"our recommendations will require significant additional funds. We consider that inescapable, if we are to put the teaching profession on a sound basis for the new century and improve the quality of school education in Scotland."

Does not Mr Monteith think that we could at least hear today from the Executive that it is prepared to put some money on the table and make a commitment that acknowledges the inescapable conclusion that the extra cash must be made available? The Executive should at least announce that it is prepared to put its hand in its pocket.

It is not too difficult to find out—from reading the speeches, listening to the minister today and examining what has been said in committee—that the Executive is going into the discussion well aware that more funds will be required, as I will demonstrate later in my speech.

Savings have to be made in some areas. However, the only specific figure in the report is the £100 million that could be saved through reductions in the provision of supply cover for planned absences. It is interesting to note that that was the one aspect that the EIS said that it was less than happy with at its annual general meeting.

An uncertain amount of money must be found, but where is it expected to come from? We should examine two areas—I say to Bruce Crawford that I have no doubt that the Executive is considering this. Back in 1996, when Michael Forsyth first suggested that the SJNC be wound up in favour of a pay review body, part of the argument put forward—I know that the Liberal Democrats have given this strong consideration—was that, over the years, teachers in Scotland had fallen some 8 per cent behind their colleagues in England. That amount of money was offered and provided to local authorities, but it was not negotiated and passed on to teachers. One expects that money could be found within local authority budgets.

Secondly, the Executive announced in a press release on 2 June that Scottish schools were to receive an additional £32 million. However, the annual expenditure report for the Executive, which was published in April, had assigned an extra £87 million for education. Can the minister tell us where the additional £55 million has gone? It would be a fair bet to suspect that that money might be used for McCrone. However, given the uncertainty and size of the costs, even an extra £55 million would make only a small dent in the funds needed.

We need to know whether the Executive can afford more than £500 million for the next five years and, if so, how. If local authorities and the Executive cannot afford the full cost of implementation, will local authorities be forced to increase council taxes to meet the cost? We need clarification of the exact costs of implementing the report. Only then can we begin to debate which reforms are our priorities and how we can fund them. That is the way in which we should take this matter forward. We should not ask the Government to show its hand first and therefore make all negotiations redundant.

Nicola Sturgeon likes to portray herself as the teachers' friend. I often share her attitude to these matters. I should declare that I am a member of the EIS. I have to remember to do that every time that I speak on education.

Brian Monteith is wrong. On this occasion, Nicola Sturgeon is not following the EIS line. As Peter Peacock pointed out, the EIS statement says that

"we believe that there is very little scope for debate on McCrone at this time."

Ian Jenkins is selectively quoting. That quotation from the EIS refers to the detail of the report. I accept that we should not pre-empt the negotiations on the detail, but is he aware of the resolution passed at the EIS AGM last week that calls on the Executive to clarify its position on the McCrone report and to give a commitment to fund its recommendations? That is exactly what the SNP is calling on the Executive to do. If Ian Jenkins accuses me of being inexperienced, is he also saying that the EIS and the teaching profession are inexperienced?

I will again quote from the EIS briefing to MSPs:

"Time to consider is of particular importance for teachers, as the Report has arrived in staff rooms at a very busy time of the year, and . . . representative organisations . . . must follow a structured process of consideration."

I will ask Nicola Sturgeon a question, although I do not know whether I am allowed to. She says that she is asking a series of easy questions. Does she believe that the report should be taken as a whole, down to every dot and comma, or should there be negotiations? If there are to be negotiations, we do not know what the funding will have to be. It is cuckoo to say, "We will tell you what the amount of money is, then we will have the negotiations." That is not how things work.

The millennium review was a total disaster because it was cobbled together behind the scenes by the SJNC, which has now been scrubbed but which the SNP wanted to keep. That report got all sorts of things totally wrong and people did not accept it. Despite the fact that it sought to change the structure of promotion in Scottish schools and many aspects of pay and conditions, it turned up on teachers' desks and they had to say yes or no to it in a fortnight.

This process is different. McCrone has considered the pay and conditions of teachers and has produced some very interesting ideas—many of which I, as a teacher, would have supported—but people are not yet sure what some of the proposals mean. We must have time to examine the report. Teachers must have a chance to digest it, discuss it properly and read it in full. They should not have to decide on it just before the busiest, exam time of the year. Nicola Sturgeon says that Sam Galbraith has had three weeks or six weeks, but six weeks is not a long time in which to deal with a big report that will change teachers' lives. Teachers need to discuss it and to decide whether it suits people who may be halfway through their careers.

The report represents a great way ahead for someone who is going into the profession now. I like the ideas about retirement packages, pensions, and sabbatical leave. Those ideas need to be digested. The money for the proposals on pensions would be a big consideration. I can imagine that a deal will be done on short-term issues such as pay and conditions, but pensions are a different ball game altogether and cannot be decided on now with a simple yes or no.

I have gone away off my speech, but I will get back to it.

You are in your final 30 seconds.

How long have I got? Gaun yersel, son. I have lost the place now.

Nicola Sturgeon is like one of those kids we used to get in school. There would be a nice wee girl in the classroom who would be a wee bit surly sometimes but was bright and intelligent. One would enjoy engaging in discussion with her and would eventually get a nice relationship going with her, but she would not let other people have their chance. If she was given the main part in a play, when her wee bit was finished, she would say, "I'm not in it for another 10 pages—can we get on to that bit?" Other people need to have their chance.

Will the member give way?

Order. The member is over time.

Nicola Sturgeon's time is not now. She can come back in the last scene when the back-stabbing goes on and everybody dies. Instead of doing "Macbeth", we could do "Monteith". There is a lot of back-stabbing in that—nasty letters and so on.

Will the member give way?

I leave members with this thought. This is not the time or place to debate the McCrone report.

I must be frank with the chamber. The open debate has to finish in eight minutes and four members want to speak—members can make their own calculations. Either members will be very brief or some people will be disappointed.

I will try to get back to the subject of the debate.

I had hoped that by the time I was called to speak, the minister would have taken the chance that was afforded him by this SNP-sponsored debate to give his opinion on the findings of the McCrone committee, as Nicola Sturgeon suggested he should. I had hoped, at the very least, that the Executive would have outlined what resources had been set aside to fund the new settlement. I tell Peter Peacock, Brian Monteith & co that negotiation is not about just money, but includes such things as terms and conditions of service. Nevertheless, the minister will be pleased to have the support of Brian Monteith on this vital issue.

I had also hoped that, as an absolute bottom line, the Executive would use today's debate to give a clear and unequivocal commitment that, whatever conclusion was reached, the settlement would be funded by the Executive. I had hoped to hear a clear and unequivocal commitment that hard-pressed local authorities, which—as stated in Jack McConnell's response to parliamentary question S1W-5177—face a cut of £191 million in revenue support grant next year, would not have to pay for the settlement in increased council tax levels or cuts in jobs and services.

Unfortunately, I have been left disappointed, as I am by so much of what the Executive has to say. I am disappointed because—I am sure I speak for the entire chamber when I say this—Scotland's teachers deserve, and have the right to expect, better.

The issue is not whether McCrone—or whatever variation of it ends up as the final settlement—should be paid for, but who will pay for it. I am disappointed because the Executive continues to play politics with the issue and to leave the key players in the process in the dark about its intentions. We should be able to expect a clear statement of how much money is available to fund the award, what local authorities will be expected to pay and what the knock-on consequences on council tax increases and/or job losses and service cuts in each local authority will be.

I remind the minister of COSLA's view, expressed by its president, Councillor Norman Murray, last week. He said:

"We have made it abundantly clear to ministers that local government budgets are already fully stretched and that the Government will have to meet its full share of the bill. So COSLA's message could not be starker. If McCrone's recommendations are not funded centrally, then they cannot be implemented."

I understand that the minister has stated that he wants to consult before making a pronouncement, but it seems odd that the third party in a triangular negotiation should be silent, while the other two parties are forthright in their opinions. One is left to surmise that the Executive's silence has more to do with the need to stall for time than the need to listen to public or professional opinion.

In the spirit of consensus and the new politics, let me offer the Executive a way out. Why does not the Executive use this opportunity to put on record the resources that are available? It would not have to give a commitment to release those resources; all I ask is that its position be made clear. How much money is on the table and how much will local authorities have to find from their resources? Telling us that would not bind the Executive. The minister could still hold his consultation. He would still be able to deliberate, cogitate and mull things over. He would not have made a commitment; he would have said, on record, only how much was in the kitty and how far the Executive was prepared to go. That would give the unions and local authority employers clear parameters in which to operate and would give the discussions an air of reality.

Will the member give way?

I have only a couple of minutes left.

There is only one minute left.

As things stand, COSLA states that unless resources to implement the McCrone recommendations are met in full by the Executive, the recommendations cannot be implemented at all. The unions say that unless there is money on the table, the process is dead. In the middle, we have the Executive saying nothing at all. The minister has his chance to end the speculation and tell us what resources are available. If there is £450 million in the kitty, let him say so. If there is £250 million, as has been reported, let him say so. If there is no money in the kitty and the minister expects local authorities to fund the recommendations, in the same way that they have had to fund every other award that Labour has sanctioned, let the minister say so.

The issue is one of resources, but it is also one of honesty. If the Executive cannot afford to fund McCrone, let it say so. If the Executive believes that it has a duty to fund only part, or none, of McCrone, let it say so. If it believes that local authority taxpayers should pay the bill, or that there should be efficiency savings in local authority services, we must be told. The Executive does not need to consult to have an opinion and it does not need three months to express a view. The Executive should clear the matter up today and let Scotland's teachers know where they stand.

New Labour and its Liberal Democrat colleagues are fond of saying that politics is about tough choices. Let me put a tough choice to them today: choose between telling the truth—being straight with the teachers and the people of Scotland—and hiding behind spin and delay. I invite the minister to make that tough choice when he closes for the Executive.

I support the motion.

I am glad that I did not have to follow Ian Jenkins's contribution, because I would have sounded more sensible than usual.

I listened carefully to Nicola Sturgeon's opening statement, but I am still not sure what she thought she would achieve by having this debate. We could have predicted Peter Peacock's response, which was the only response he could possibly give in the circumstances. It does the Parliament no benefit to have a discussion in the vacuum in which we are having this discussion.

I agree that part of the EIS's statement said that we should hold back from commenting on McCrone at this stage, and I appreciate the reason for that suggestion. As soon as the McCrone report was published, there were headlines saying that teachers were to get huge pay increases or performance-related pay. If members have read the report in any detail, they will know that those headlines were soundbites and were completely off—they do not reflect what the report says. We can do the report justice only by sitting down to consider it, negotiating with interested parties and considering seriously what the report is trying to achieve.

I am surprised that, so far, Nicola Sturgeon has not taken the opportunity to raise the McCrone report at the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I appreciate that the agendas have been fairly busy recently, and that that would have been rather difficult, but I hope that the committee will have a role to play in considering the McCrone report. McCrone has signalled several areas that need further work and investigation; one such area is work load. Committee members have spoken regularly to teachers throughout the country, who have told us that work load is an important issue. Even yesterday, during our evidence session on the special educational needs inquiry, teachers were saying that they needed more time to bring children with special educational needs into the class, to give them a quality education.

McCrone flagged up work load as one of the issues that need to be considered, and it might have been more productive to consider that than to have this debate today.

Given the evidence that the committee has heard about the burden on teachers, does Mary Mulligan accept that it would be perfectly reasonable for the Executive to signal its intentions by accepting the parts of the McCrone report that made those points and acknowledging that that will have resource implications?

No. I do not think that it would be helpful for the Executive to make any such statements at this stage. I welcome the McCrone report as a basis for examining the issues that are important to the teaching profession, parents and students. We should use that as a starting point, but at this stage, we should not make statements on what we think is right and wrong.

Teachers tell us that they feel undervalued. McCrone provides a basis to give teachers back recognition of their professionalism. It is not just about finance. I am not naive enough to think that we can discuss the report without realising that there are financial implications. However, I do not think that teachers want the debate to be reduced to cash and nothing else—there are more important issues. Teachers do not want to become the meat in the political sandwich.

I have been asked to wind up.

The minutiae of negotiations cannot take place in the chamber and they should not take place in the committee. We must give time to the on-going discussions. We can do justice to teachers, parents and students only by allowing the debate enough time.

On a point of order. This morning, every speaker has been either a front-bench spokesperson or a committee convener. That is an abuse of the chamber. The organisation of this business—a one-hour debate in which no back bencher is allowed to speak—is quite inappropriate. I hope, Presiding Officer, that that will be taken back to the Parliamentary Bureau. It is plainly an abuse of the chamber.

I take that point, and I can confirm that I will take the matter to the bureau. I have to say that the SNP gave up 15 minutes of its time to accommodate the statement later this morning. We now move to winding-up speeches.

It is quite right for the SNP to raise this issue—that is what Opposition parties are for—and to press the Executive. The Executive is correct in saying that there should be more consultation and that it needs to form a measured response.

I will focus on some of the non-financial aspects. I am one of those people who consistently cry out for more resources for education and other public services, but there is an important non-financial aspect to the debate—the morale of teachers, and their work load. The Scottish Liberal Democrats went into the election calling for an overall inquiry into Scottish education. That was not included in the coalition agreement, but McCrone addressed such issues and I hope that the Executive will pursue them in order to keep the good will of the teachers. That does not mean surrendering to every demand of the teachers' unions, but keeping the teachers on board and improving their morale, which at present is extremely bad.

In particular, the issue of pupils with behavioural difficulties must be dealt with more head-on. There is a great reluctance to admit that there is such a problem, because teachers and head teachers feel that they are admitting failure if they do so. There are problems in many places, and they must be tackled more intelligently.

There is the further issue of teachers contributing to out-of-school activities and the more general point about increasing the education of children outside school, where, with all due respect to people who have tried teaching, most good education takes place. We need to consider questions about the management of out-of-school clubs and activities—for example, whether they are run by teachers or by other people in association with teachers.

I welcomed especially the McCrone report's recommendation for a bureaucracy audit. Having previously volunteered to be a bumf tsar, I am volunteering to take part in such an important exercise. Teachers find themselves submerged by the many well-intentioned initiatives and other pieces of paper at national, council and school level, and we need to address that problem to allow teachers to get on with what they are good at—teaching.

I notice the importance that Andrew Wilson attaches to this debate—he is reading The Daily Telegraph.

It is The Sunday Telegraph.

You will agree that the weather is somewhat humid and that there are rather more nats around than usual. As a result, I have decided to designate today bash-a-nat day—and it is Nicola Sturgeon's turn. I am by nature a tolerant and patient person, but your recent posturing and statements have bored me to tears. You could bore for Britain without competition; however, you would no doubt prefer to do so for Scotland.

Yesterday, you accused the Scottish Conservatives of not contributing to the debate on section 2A. However, apart from Michael McMahon, only the Conservatives came up with amendments to that section of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill and chose to debate the question in Parliament.

Conversely, you did not offer any amendments and your policy was dictated by opinion polls, not conviction. The carping continues in today's debate.

You should speak to the motion, Mr Harding.

The McCrone report is complex and comprehensive, and requires careful consideration and consultation, as we know that resources are not finite. Your motion is premature, as it does not give the Executive time to deliberate and suggest proposals for the Parliament's consideration. Like all SNP motions, it is all about political point-scoring and the ultimate aim of destroying the union. The report presents an opportunity to address the deficiencies in education, and this is not the time to allow rampant political opportunism. Although your party always promises the earth, it cannot produce the resources. Your expenditure plans surpass even the Executive's recycled announcements, which is no mean achievement. However, that is understandable, because if we believe what we hear, your party has difficulties in managing its own meagre resources.

I support the amendment.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given that Mr Harding is addressing the chair, it strikes me that the chair is being unnecessarily abused by his language.

Mr Harding?

I have finished my speech, so it is difficult for me to respond—but if you think that that was abuse, I will give you some more later on.

I made it clear earlier that we would not be deflected from our commitment to take the McCrone report seriously. After all, the Executive established the committee, despite SNP opposition. We did not establish the committee so that we could then completely ignore its recommendations; we did so to provide the basis for discussions with key interests to secure our objective of a well-motivated teaching profession.

The ultimate aim is to deliver higher standards and better education for our children, and we have confirmed that we intend to consult interested parties before we take any steps towards implementation. We will do so through a series of consultation meetings over the summer with groups that represent employers, teachers and head teachers, and others. That is what we have said we will do and that is what we will do; I have heard nothing from the SNP today that would make me change my mind.

Ian Jenkins's helpful and entertaining speech, based on his experience in the teaching profession, struck a balanced note on how we should approach such matters. Mary Mulligan's mature approach did likewise.

We are determined to use the McCrone committee report for the purpose of securing answers to the difficult questions that must be answered if we are to have the teaching profession that our country needs. We will not use the McCrone report just as a political weapon. We will not use teachers—in Mary Mulligan's words—as the meat in a political sandwich. I urge Parliament to support the Executive amendment.

I will take the debate back to its serious intent. The McCrone committee report was long awaited, not just by teachers but by parents and pupils. It was eagerly awaited because of the uncertainty and rancour that had arisen over the millennium review.

When this matter was debated before and I said that the McCrone committee was the chance of a lifetime, Fiona McLeod condemned that statement. Does she now admit that the McCrone committee was worth while?

We said that the McCrone committee was a delaying tactic. That is also true of the Government's response to the report, which is a tactic to delay having to resolve the uncertainty at the heart of the teaching profession. McCrone identified that when he said that teaching is a profession under pressure and that teachers feel misunderstood and undervalued. My party and I think it right and proper to expect a response from the Government to the McCrone report, to reassure the teaching profession that it intends to take matters forward positively.

Would Fiona McLeod agree that, as the EIS has announced categorically that it will not release publicly any of its negotiating positions over the summer, it is rather strange to ask the Government to release its position before that?

I direct Robin Harper's attention to the resolution of the annual general meeting of the EIS that called on the Scottish Executive to

"clarify its attitude to the McCrone report and to confirm that it will guarantee to provide the resources necessary to fund, in full, the outcome of the negotiations which will follow the publication of the McCrone Report."

That is a clear statement. The position of a union in negotiations is different from that of the Government. We are looking for a Government response—not a detailed one—that recognises the import of the McCrone report. We want to know whether the Government accepts the conclusions that McCrone reached.

It has become obvious that the forthcoming consultation is just another delaying tactic. One would presume that a consultation process has a couple of purposes: to inform the Government of the views of the profession and the public; and to influence the Government's decisions. However, that does not preclude the Government from expressing an opinion on the report at this point.

We know that the Government has opinions on many of the issues that were raised by McCrone. In its manifesto, Labour stated that it would free teachers to teach. Paragraph 6.19 of the McCrone report calls for a bureaucracy audit and, in paragraph 3.45, there is a call for more classroom assistants to

"enable teachers to concentrate on their teaching duties."

By not commenting on the McCrone report, is the Government saying that it is going back on its manifesto commitment to give teachers time to teach? That is a simple question and I would like an answer.

I have two questions. First, how does a lack of comment imply a change in policy? Secondly, will Fiona McLeod state how much the SNP would allocate to implementing the McCrone recommendations? We are keeping a running total of what the SNP plans to spend.

I have two answers for Dr Simpson. The Labour party can back up its manifesto commitment to free the teachers to teach, as McCrone recommends. At the same time, as the Labour party is the party of government, it must fund the committee that it set up. We are the Opposition, and we will cost it in our manifesto when the time comes.

We are discussing finances, so let us turn to paragraph 1.11 of the report. McCrone states:

"One specific issue which has been raised a number times with the Committee is the question how any changes to pay, promotion structures and conditions of service it may recommend will be financed."

The quotations on the financial aspects go on and on. We have heard them today, and it is a major issue. Malcolm McIvor of the EIS said that if the process was to go anywhere, there would have to be money on the table and that if there was no funding, the process would, in effect, be dead. David Eaglesham of the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association said that there would be no point in discussing the matter any further if the Executive did not agree to fund the recommendations and that if the price—which is huge—were not to be met, the process would have been a waste of time.

I do not think that the McCrone report was a waste of time, and nor does the SNP, but if the Government does not tell us whether it thinks that the report was a waste of time, and whether it is prepared to provide the funds to ensure that the recommendations are met, the whole thing will have been a waste of time. I hope that this morning's debate has not been a waste of time, but has allowed the SNP—as the Opposition party—to raise the genuine concerns of the profession and the parents. I hope that the Government will respond to those genuine concerns, and I urge members to support the SNP motion.

We are now about four or five minutes ahead of schedule. I shall add that time on to the next debate.