School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1119, in the name of Peter Peacock, that the general principles of the School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to.
In Scotland, we have high expectations of our schools and we set high standards for them. No child should suffer because we have not done enough to secure the best for them in their education.
We are doing many things to improve education. We are working to reform the curriculum, to increase pupil choice, to simplify and reduce assessment in our schools, to reduce class sizes and to increase the number of specialist teachers working in primary schools. Those and many other measures will reap rewards for Scottish education. The bill is by no means the only method by which we seek to drive improvement, but it is a crucial part of the whole picture.
The key powers that we are seeking in the bill are last-resort powers to bring about change in a school or an education authority when inspectors believe that that is essential and would not happen through normal means.
The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 placed ministers under a statutory duty to secure improvements in school education. I take that responsibility seriously and I am willing to be accountable for delivery of that improvement. That act also established an improvement framework in school education with distinct roles for schools, for education authorities, for Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education and for ministers. The legislation that we are proposing to Parliament fits into that improvement framework. It will also update legislation that governs independent schools. It is part of our determination to ensure that we are equipped to continue to drive up standards so that no child is being given second best in the system.
Part 1 of the bill will introduce new ministerial powers in relation to education authorities and their schools and in relation to grant-aided schools. Part 2 will change the existing legislation on independent schools to modernise the provisions that apply to them.
I have heard arguments that I do not need those new powers or that they are unnecessary. However, I would not be here to present the bill to members today if that were the case. I see inspection as playing a central role in improving the education of our young people. HMIE carries out inspections in our schools and our education authorities and it publishes reports on the basis of those inspections. That ensures that all parties are clear about what needs to be done following an inspection report. Education authorities are then responsible for making any necessary changes.
HMIE has no legal power to enforce its recommendations; HMIE is not a regulatory body, nor does it wish to be so, but it is right—given the central role of HMIE in the improvement process—that the new powers that are proposed in the bill will be triggered by a referral from HMIE.
Will the minister tell us how many times his existing powers under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 have been used?
The existing powers under section 70 of the 1980 act have been used extremely rarely—I am aware of one comparatively recent case in relation to the City of Edinburgh Council. As I will explain, that is partly because those powers are prescribed in relation to clear breaches of statutory duties and HMIE reports are not subject to that.
Before HMIE refers an authority or school to ministers, it would need to have inspected the authority or the school and to have identified actions that will be required to secure improvement. Only after it had come to the conclusion that satisfactory action had not been taken and had judged the matter, in its professional opinion, to be sufficiently serious to warrant an enforcement direction, would HMIE recommend such an action to ministers. Four serious steps would therefore have to be taken before the power could be used.
The Education Committee has been scrutinising the bill and has highlighted the matter in its stage 1 report. I understand and appreciate the committee's comments and, like the committee, I want the new powers to operate only when serious matters are at stake. In the light of the committee's observations, I will undertake to explore the possibility of an amendment to the bill to make that clearer. In so doing, however, I do not want to limit unduly the scope of HMIE to act when it considers action to be necessary.
Under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, I have extensive powers to intervene when a breach of a statutory duty occurs. However, failure to implement HMIE recommendations does not of itself constitute a breach of statutory duty, so the section 70 powers cannot be used effectively when a council does not pursue the improvement that HMIE requires—which brings us to the point that Murdo Fraser made. The bill proposes a more proportionate ministerial power.
Will the minister give way?
I will give way, although I am conscious that I am short of time.
The minister explains that the fact that the section 70 powers have not often been used does not mean that the bill is not needed. However, I recall that the Executive argued that section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988—or section 2A of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1986—should be abolished because it was not used. Surely there is an inconsistency in the Executive's rationale.
There is inconsistency in the rationale that exists in Brian Monteith's mind if he is trying to link the two issues.
Many authorities have already put in place effective quality assurance mechanisms to identify problems and use those mechanisms to ensure that HMIE's recommendations are acted on. Such authorities have no reason to fear the bill. The key point is that if HMIE tells me that the necessary improvements are not taking place, I need to have the power to take action to ensure that pupils' education does not suffer. I hope that the need to use the proposed powers will be very rare indeed. However, if something were to go wrong, it would be no excuse for ministers to say that although they had realised in 2003 that they did not have the necessary powers, they had taken no action to seek them.
I turn to the provisions for independent schools. My duty is to secure improvement in the quality of education in all schools in Scotland. I think that there is broad consensus that an update of the legislation on independent schools is overdue. I welcome the Education Committee's detailed consideration of the proposed changes. The extension of the definition of an independent school to schools that have fewer than five pupils will enable me to ensure that all children receive a proper education, regardless of what school they attend.
The bill will abolish the concept of provisional registration and replace that with a power for ministers to set conditions on the operation of the school. We want to be sure that even before a school opens we have all the information that we require to be confident that the school can provide quality education and that it can secure the safety and welfare of the children who will be in its care from day to day. The provisions are in line with the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care's registration system and will help to ensure a consistent approach for schools that have boarding provision. Concern has been expressed about the proposed ministerial power to set conditions. I give an absolute assurance that the power is being sought to allow us to respond more flexibly to individual situations, rather than to enable us to set national standards in the way that has happened down south. Again, I make it clear that I am happy to consider amendments at stage 2 that could clarify that.
The current notice of complaint procedure is inflexible. Schools are given six months to comply with any actions that are specified in a notice of complaint, which is not always appropriate. The proposed changes to the procedure will mean that an appropriate time limit for action would be set for each case.
The independent schools tribunal meets extremely rarely; indeed, its most recent meeting took place in 1997. The bill will therefore remove what is now an archaic tribunal and it will amend the appeals process.
Finally, I have noted the recommendations that the Subordinate Legislation Committee made, which were supported by the Education Committee, regarding the use of the affirmative procedure in a particular circumstance. Again, I will be happy to consider an amendment at stage 2.
I thank the Education Committee for its consideration of the bill and for its recommendation that the bill's general principles be agreed. The bill is small, but it is important. It will ensure that ministers have the powers that they need to require improvement in schools, when that is needed. It will also provide modernised powers to regulate independent schools. The powers in the bill are proportionate to their objectives and will ensure that ministers can be properly held to account for their responsibilities by Parliament. I commend the bill to Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill.
The minister has not made the case for ministerial intervention powers at all. The Scottish National Party does not support the general principles of the School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill because we believe the bill to be unnecessary. The minister has not explained any circumstances in which the powers might be used and he has not offered any evidence that there is demand for the powers. Rather than introduce legislation, the Executive should monitor—for perhaps three years—the newly introduced inspection process. Only if the system is not working should the Executive perhaps consider whether ministerial powers are needed and worthy of Parliament's attention.
Does the member agree that ministers should be accountable to the public and Parliament for securing improvements in Scotland's schools? If so, how can he possibly vote against the bill?
Two different elected bodies are responsible for schools and primacy lies with local authorities. They have their own mandate; Parliament was at great pains to provide local authorities with a power of general competence. This bill will undermine that power.
I hope that it would never happen, but if a local authority were not making necessary changes following an HMIE recommendation—Brian Adam should remember that we are talking about an HMIE recommendation—what would the SNP do?
The minister is trying to do away with a power that has actually been used—although not for 27 years—so I do not see why the hypothetical question that he asks requires an answer. It is for him to justify his actions and to consider what they are likely to lead to.
The ministerial powers are unnecessary because there is no evidence that recommendations from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education are not taken seriously or not acted on by local authorities. This bill is therefore not so much a bill as a contingency measure—one that the minister has said would be rarely used. I suspect that it would never be used. At the moment, inspectors, education authorities and individual schools work together in a strong partnership for the benefit of pupils. Are we not therefore using a sledgehammer to crack a nut?
The ministerial powers of intervention that the bill seeks to impose on schools show a lack of trust in local authorities, which will disrupt the existing relationship. In its submission to the consultation, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities argued that to give
"ministers a new power to intervene to direct local authorities to take specific action relating to individual schools is pre-emptive and unnecessary."
Recently, concerns have been expressed about an education authority—I am talking about the crisis at Scottish Borders Council. However, that situation was resolved without the powers that the minister now seeks. That is how things should be done. There was no need for ministerial intervention then and there is no need for ministerial intervention now. Executive officials have failed to provide evidence of cases in which the new legislation might have been used, and the Headteachers Association of Scotland concluded that it could not foresee a situation in which the proposed powers would be needed.
An illustration of the discrepancy between the proposed legislation and the actual situation is that the Highland Council referred to the bill as being a
"sledgehammer to crack a nut".
Experience and the current situation simply do not justify the ministerial powers of intervention.
Murdo Fraser rightly pointed out that sufficient legislative powers exist, in the words of the consultation paper,
"to secure improvement in the quality of school education in Scotland."
The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 can be interpreted as providing a catch-all for duties and responsibilities in education. There is therefore no gap between existing legislation and the powers that are required for ministers to carry out their duties. There has been no problem in the past, so why is there now a problem, all of a sudden?
Technically speaking, the sections on independent schools could stand alone as legislation. Updating of legislation that affects independent schools does not depend on ministerial powers, so both things should not be proposed in the same bill. The Educational Institute of Scotland suggests that it would have been more logical to have handled the two matters in separate bills.
The bill is a waste of Parliament's time, which could be much better used for meaningful legislation to address, for example, the rising problems of classroom indiscipline and the consequential effects on pupils' education and staff morale and health. Before we spend time on unnecessary legislation and on debating whether there will be minor amendments at stage 2, we need to decide whether there is sufficient justification for the bill's general principles. The Scottish National Party will oppose the bill—which is rather unique—because we feel that it is such a waste of our time.
I cannot but feel the force of Brian Adam's words. Few coalition bills can have been received by local authorities with such a total lack of enthusiasm—not to mention implacable opposition, in some cases—as this one. It is strange that there should be such a total lack of meeting of minds between a Labour-led coalition and Labour local authorities. I am the first to stress that HMIE has performed and does perform a great service. That is not, to be frank, in dispute and nor should it be. What is at issue is the sincere concern of many local authorities that the powers in part 1 of the bill are unnecessary.
It seems to me that there are no fewer than five reasons why the bill is not necessary at this point in time. First, section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 states:
"If the Secretary of State is satisfied … that an education authority, a School Board, the managers of a school or educational establishment, or other persons have failed to discharge any duty imposed on them by or for the purposes of this Act or of any other enactment relating to education, the Secretary of State may make an order declaring them to be in default in respect of that duty and requiring them before a date stated in the order to discharge that duty."
The member referred to a duty. Does he accept that that does not apply when an HMIE report is produced? That is the whole point of the bill. In that context, there is no duty to do what an HMIE report recommends. Therefore, we need to fill that gap so that it is consonant with the existing act.
I do not accept that assertion. As well as section 70 of the 1980 act, section 2 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 is relevant. That section imposes a duty to secure improvement in the quality of education if an HMIE report is not being acted on—ministers are given the power to act. If ministers came to Parliament and said that they were having difficulty because this or that local authority was refusing to implement improvements that were recommended, I would believe that they had a case for the bill. However, there is no evidence that that is the situation. Aberdeenshire Council wisely said:
"It is not clear that the new legislative powers are necessary with regard to enforcement … it is at least arguable that these powers are covered within section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980."
That leads me to my second point, which is that there is no evidence that local authorities are not taking HMIE recommendations seriously. South Lanarkshire Council stated:
"Since 1996 … there have been no occasions where HMIe have advised that schools and the authority failed to make satisfactory progress on all recommendations contained in their reports. In these circumstances … the proposals set out within the consultation paper for new Ministerial powers would seem unnecessary."
It is impossible for me not to have great sympathy with the Labour group on South Lanarkshire Council, because the existing powers that are contained in section 70 of the 1980 act have been used only once since 1980. Therefore, nobody could possibly claim that local democracy in Scotland is totally at loggerheads with HMIE.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have given way once and I have a lot to say. I have got only two more minutes.
The third reason for opposing the bill is perhaps even more compelling—the new proportionate inspection system has just been brought in. Surely the new system should be given time to prove itself without being subject to further reforms so soon after its creation.
Alex Easton of the Headteachers Association of Scotland said:
"Ideally, I would hold the proposal in abeyance and review the situation in two or three years."—[Official Report, Education Committee, 12 May 2004; c 1348.]
The fourth point is that part 1 of the bill will undermine local democracy and will shift power from local to central Government. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities expressed grave concern about that. That leads me to the fifth point, which concerns COSLA's view that the bill was a waste of parliamentary time. That is very strong language for a Labour councillor to use about a bill that has been produced by a Labour-led coalition. Parliament should take note of that.
I urge colleagues to concentrate on major educational issues instead of being sidetracked by an issue that is substantially untested and uncertain. The Executive's case for the bill is, as yet, not proven.
The School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill is a modest piece of legislation as such things go, but its proposals are hardly equivalent to the English-style hit squads or e-squads. I think that we need to take a sensible and proportionate response in our approach to the bill today.
I will deal first with an uncontroversial part of the bill—part 2. As the minister rightly said, part 2 will modernise the legislative framework for independent schools and it will do away with the unused tribunal—I do not know how that escaped the bonfire of the quangos. It is worth noting that part 2 refers not just to private schools—in the sense in which we understand them in Scotland—but to a range of other educational establishments, including the seven national special schools, St Mary's Music School, Queen Victoria School in Dunblane and the Steiner schools. The term "independent school" encompasses a wide range of schools.
There are a few technical points to raise, the first of which relates to the powers that the bill will give to ministers. As a general rule, it is clear that powers that are given to ministers should be fairly tightly constrained and should be developed in an accountable way. That is why the Education Committee endorsed the Subordinate Legislation Committee's view that the powers in section 4(2) should be consulted on and that their exercise should require the laying of an instrument that would be subject to the affirmative procedure. I was glad to hear that the minister accepted that principle. Although I do not envisage Peter Peacock or Euan Robson running amok with the powers of intervention in independent schools, there should, as the committee suggested, probably be more focus on what circumstances would be significant enough to justify intervention.
The second point is more general. We are setting up quite a significant regulatory apparatus, not just for independent schools, but across the board. Institutions are often subject to regulation by several bodies. In a different sphere, that has been the case with houses in multiple occupation and out-of-school groups. We are concerned that the regulatory burden on independent schools should be made tolerable by ensuring that HMIE and the care commission produce a seamless regulatory process.
I turn to the slightly more controversial area of the ministerial powers of intervention for state schools, for which part 1 of the bill provides. The controversy seems to be fairly minor; it relates to whether the new powers are needed at all. The Education Committee investigated the issue closely and concluded that the new powers would fill a gap in existing provisions.
As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and other members have said, ministers can already use the powers in section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to intervene in cases of breach of statutory duty. No one—least of all, I imagine, overburdened ministers—would wish to intervene over minor or trivial deficiencies in school practice. However, an in-between situation could arise. It might be the case that HMIE inspectors will have gone through the usual processes, have given support to improvement and, on finding that there has been no improvement on revisiting the school, can make no headway with the school or the council on matters of substance that affect the school's educational performance and the life chances of the children at the school. Such a situation is not covered by the other duties; it is a different area. There is a gap in the existing provision.
No one could suggest examples of situations in which such cases might arise but, in fairness, there is no longer a level playing field because the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 has produced a steady incline, whereby ministers and councils are under a duty to make and secure improvements in educational provision. As with the dispersal powers that formed part of another bill that we discussed recently, the measure of success of the powers in question might well be that they never have to be used. That would mean that the education system in Scotland was again the envy of the world and that it was achieving steady improvement in standards, in attainment, in achievement and—more important—in life-fulfilling opportunities for all our young people. However, the same principle must apply. In other words, ministerial powers should be exercised not on an arbitrary basis but on a principled basis. That process should begin with HMIE inspections. In that context, I was pleased to hear the minister's reassurances.
We have a pluralist society in Scotland in which local government—which has been strengthened by the passage yesterday of a bill to reform the voting system and the accountability of councillors to the electorate—has its own democratic mandate. It should not be interfered with except on substantial grounds and in accordance with proper procedures. It was for that reason that the committee thought that clarification could be made about the triggers that would lead to HMIE's recommending ministerial intervention. We felt that that was especially the case given that HMIE was under an obligation to do so.
Some witnesses to the committee expressed concern that the "sledgehammer"—as they described it—of ministerial intervention would disrupt the generally positive relationship between HMIE and schools. I have to say that I do not accept that that fear has any reality. Nevertheless, if that perception is generally held, ministers might want to consider where, on the spectrum of improvement in the inspection process that is currently being delivered, the new powers should be activated.
I said at the beginning of my speech that the bill is a modest bill. We have to have a sense of proportion about what it is intended to do. The Education Committee recommended approval of the general principles of the bill at stage 1—I am happy to ask Parliament to back and support that recommendation.
We move to the open debate. Seven members have requested to speak. If they restrict their time to four minutes, we will take everybody quite comfortably.
I welcome the change that was brought about by the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000, which gave ministers the duty to endeavour to secure improvement in the quality of school education in Scotland. That is absolutely as it should be.
As the minister pointed out today, the bill follows on from the partnership agreement, which recognised the gap that the 2000 act created and committed us to the bill that is before us today. As Robert Brown said, there was some discussion in committee about whether the bill was necessary. The Education Committee took the view, however, that it is important as the final piece of the jigsaw and that the bill will ensure that Scottish ministers fulfil their duty to secure improvement in Scottish education.
Despite the broad powers in the 1980 act, there is no specific mechanism by which ministers can guarantee that the recommendations of a particular HMIE inspection are implemented. Under the 1980 act, there is no statutory duty to implement those recommendations. The bill will provide what was described as
"a prudent end to the process."—[Official Report, Education Committee, 5 May 2004; c 1307.]
Evidence was given to the committee about the existing powers under section 70 of the 1980 act. However, failure to implement HMIE recommendations does not of itself constitute a breach of duty under the section 70 powers. We also heard evidence that there is no point in the bill being introduced if its provisions are not likely to be used. However, we know that section 70 powers were used only last year in the case of a local authority that failed to do what was required in relation to meeting the special educational needs of a schoolchild. I say to Parliament that that is what should be happening.
The circumstances of that case were covered by existing law. Can the member give examples of circumstances under which the provisions of the bill would have to be used because they were not covered by law? Indeed, does she have any evidence—other than that which was led by ministers—that there is a gap?
I will just have to repeat myself. At the moment, failure to implement HMIE recommendations does not of itself constitute a breach of duty under the section 70 powers. I am in no doubt about the fact that the bill is necessary.
Although section 70 has not been used very often, it has been used. It is important that those powers are available to be used; the same is true of the powers of the bill.
We have to be clear: although the new ministerial powers might not be required very often, what happened recently in the case of the City of Edinburgh Council illustrates that the powers have to be in place. The committee recognised that, under the new proportionate system of school inspections, ministerial powers would be used very rarely. The vast majority of authorities and schools respond positively to HMIE reports. The committee also noted that use of the powers will represent a failure of the partnership approach that all of us seek to see implemented. However, we must ensure that we have ministerial accountability. The buck should stop with the Scottish ministers.
Part 2 of the bill has been broadly welcomed. The committee supported the approach to modernisation of the legislative framework for registering and monitoring independent schools. The committee also stated that the Executive should ensure that the demands of the two regulatory regimes are proportionate.
The committee took the view that the general principles of the School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill should be approved. I urge the Parliament to do that. If members support the Executive's aim of driving up standards in Scottish schools and securing improvements for all children and young people, they must support the bill.
The bill has little to do with driving up standards for all children—it has far less to do with education, education, education than it has to do with intervention, intervention, intervention. The path that we are going down leads to much more micro-management of education by the Executive. The law is in place to allow for intervention, if it can be shown to be justified in the Court of Session. The briefing that members received contains figures that show that about 7 per cent of HMIE reports are followed up. That suggests that some schools require extra attention but that none has so far required the nuclear option.
We must consider schools in the context of their communities to find some of the reasons why it may be necessary for ministers to intervene. We cannot isolate education and its particular set of laws from what goes on in communities. There may be great difficulties, for example with children who do not conform. Teachers are at their wits' end because of the conditions in which they have to teach. We must recognise that we will not achieve better standards for children through the proposed form of enforcement. The sort of authoritarianism that is in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, which was considered last week, and in the present bill is a trend in the form of government that is anti the ability of local authorities to sort out issues and for more intervention from the centre.
Does the member accept that the powers in the bill would be used only if a local authority did not take the action that HMIE thought needed to be taken to address the problems? Ministers would not intervene in an individual case because a school had a problem, but would do so because the local authority had not worked with HMIE to try to solve the problem.
The member may have the ultimate faith in HMIE as inspectors, but the Executive is trying to turn that body into Her Majesty's enforcers of education through the bill. The main part of the bill was rejected by the education authorities, representatives of which said that they did not accept the principle that there is a need for new ministerial powers, as stated in the policy memorandum. The people who deal with education daily have rejected part 1 of the bill, which is the central part.
Private schools will be more regulated under the bill. I agree that such schools must be brought more into the main stream, but there will be no requirement for teachers in private schools to meet the General Teaching Council for Scotland's standards, which would be a major measure to improve teaching in private schools. There will simply be discussions about the introduction of such a measure. If the bill is going to do something to raise standards in private schools, it should do precisely that. That is an incomplete aspect of part 2 of the bill.
COSLA is opposed to the bill. We are spending time on minor regulations that will not change very much. We could be spending our money and time better, which is why I support my colleague Brian Adam's view that we should reject the bill at this stage.
I will speak on part 1 of the bill and, in particular, on the role of HMIE. It would be fair to say that, over the past 10 or so years, much has been achieved regarding inspection in Scottish schools, some of it initiated by previous Conservative Governments and some of it initiated by the Labour Government and the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive after the coalition was formed. That progress has generally been welcomed and encouraged by all the parties. We have witnessed increasing inspection in schools and the creation of a regular cycle of inspection, which is particularly important because it allows parents to know that a school will be inspected in the time that their child attends it. We have also witnessed the introduction of inspection of local authorities and their education departments, which is important.
We must ask whether the bill marks further progress in using inspection as a way to raise standards. On the evidence that I have considered, I do not think that the bill represents progress in the same way as some of the examples that I have given do. I am sure that many members visit local schools, as I do, particularly after I have received copies of the HMIE inspection reports. One can go to a school whether the inspection has shown that it is doing well or whether the inspection has shown that it is doing poorly, but it is noticeable that if the report has been a poor one, by the time that I have written to the school saying that I am interested in coming to hear its views on the report, its failings will have been addressed. Without doubt, that happens on every occasion, and on the—unfortunately—many occasions on which there have been poor reports about local authority education departments, the leadership of those departments has been changed.
I welcome the fact that head teachers who are not getting the right attainment in schools move on to other pastures and that new leadership is brought into schools, but that tells me that the bill is not necessary. Indeed, if we look at the increasing number of inspections together with the failure reported in follow-up inspections, we find that although the failure is increasing, so too is the number of inspections; the proportion of failure is not disconcerting at all. In 1999-2000, only five follow-up inspections were unsatisfactory. In 2002, the number had risen to 11 but, by that time, the number of inspections had risen from 150 several years before to 299. That clearly shows that local authorities and schools are taking into consideration what HMIE says. We also need to take cognisance of the fact that we have a new inspection regime, which should be given time to bed in. We cannot say whether the new follow-up system is delivering, so why change it yet?
Rhona Brankin talked often in her speech of the committee's support for this and that, but on many occasions, it was majority support, not unanimous. That is an important consideration, because to give the committee's blessing is to suggest that support was cross-party, but it was often split along Executive-Opposition lines.
Those considerations need to be taken into account, and I suggest that we should oppose the bill at the moment.
It was interesting to hear Brian Monteith's comments on when a committee is not a committee, but I believe that that is what is normally called democracy.
I will speak in favour of the bill, which is a relatively uncontroversial measure. I say "relatively" because I realise that there have been some strongly worded comments about certain parts of the bill, but it is a bill on which we should all have been able to agree in the committee, and I am disappointed that that was not so.
The part of the bill that deals with the monitoring and registration of independent schools has been broadly welcomed by all parties. The committee flagged up concern over how to ensure closer co-operation and joint working between HMIE and the care commission and I would welcome assurance from the minister that he will respond to that concern. However, the other proposals are very welcome, and I commend the Executive on those.
There has been some adverse comment about the part of the bill that deals with new ministerial powers of intervention. As one committee colleague observed, that has often had more to do with the provisions of the Local Governance (Scotland) Bill, which we debated yesterday, and I do not think that it reflects either the intention or the effect of the new powers under the School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill.
I accept that there is some sensitivity over any action that may be perceived as part of a centralising agenda. However, I see little evidence that such an agenda is the motivation behind the bill. On the contrary, the recent reforms introducing powers of general competence for local authorities, the move to three-year budgeting and the negotiation of outcome agreements are just some examples of our continuing commitment to full devolution. The new powers under the bill are in fact less draconian or severe than those that already exist under section 70 of the 1980 act. The bill is not about assuming new powers but about improving what is already an active and productive relationship between schools, local authorities and the Executive.
As colleagues have commented, the bill must be considered in the context of the overall reforms that we have already introduced in schools and throughout education policy. The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 established the improvement agenda in legislation, placing new duties on local authorities and establishing new rights for young people. HMIE has moved to a new inspection regime, which now includes inspections of local authorities as well as a new supportive relationship and partnership with the schools.
To view the bill as a battle between central Government and local government misses the point. Many of the arguments against the bill have been expressed in terms of who pulls the strings, rather than focusing on the impact that the bill might have on, and the benefits that it might bring to, our young people. The bill is not about power or control; it is about how we best improve the prospects and opportunities for pupils in future generations. I do not believe that there is any evidence that we are failing our brightest and best. Scottish schools have always allowed our most able pupils to flourish, and long may that continue. However, it is clear that we need to work harder to improve prospects for all pupils and to close the gap between the highest achievers and those who get nothing or very little from the education system. Improving our schools is about equality and opportunity for all, which is not just for the benefit of individuals but for the prosperity of our whole economy and for the stake that it gives all our citizens in a healthy community and society.
At a time when political parties are laying out their approach to public service reforms, and following the statement by the Minister for Finance and Public Services, Andy Kerr, earlier today, it is worth contrasting the approach of Labour and the Executive with that of the Conservatives. The Tories, with their dogmatic, market-obsessed approach, have a winner-takes-all agenda, which rewards the few but condemns many more to failure. Under the Tories, thousands of children, through force of circumstance and not through lack of effort, would still be condemned to sink schools or failing schools, which would blight their futures and give them less chance to contribute as full and productive members of our society. We cannot allow any of our schools to let us down. We should not be condemning them; we should support them when they need it most. That is what the bill is all about.
It was interesting to note that Brian Adam could not answer when he was asked what the SNP would do in the unfortunate situation of a school or local authority not putting in place the measures that were required to turn a school round.
I am disappointed that the SNP and the Tories would rather fall back on what appears to be oppositionism—the easy route of joining up with others who, for whatever reason, resist change—than engage constructively with the improvement that is taking place and try to find the best way to achieve significant improvements in our children's education. I urge those parties to rethink their opposition to the bill and to support the motion.
It has now been many moons since I was on the Education, Culture and Sport Committee—when Brian Monteith and I would cheerfully shake each other by the throat—but it is good to revisit the subject.
I have listened to the debate with great interest. One of the arguments that both the SNP and the Conservative party have put forward has been that the bill is, as they would describe it, legislation for legislation's sake. I do not believe that ministers are into that sort of game. I ask members of both those Opposition parties whether they are sure that they are not opposing for opposition's sake. I am told by my colleague Robert Brown that, although Brian Monteith might say that most of the divisions at the Education Committee were on Executive-Opposition lines, that was not always the case and there was a good deal of consensus on the bill.
I want to pose a philosophical question to both the Scottish National Party and the Conservative party, which I hope will be addressed in the winding-up speeches from their spokespeople. When a legal structure is framed, should it be framed in such a way that we know that there might be loopholes that could be used at a future date, or should we build a sound structure, in which the ultimate sanction is rigorous, even if we might not have recourse to it? It has been clearly explained to us that section 70 of the 1980 act does not contain the ultimate power to sort out the problem in question and, unless I am much mistaken, that is why ministers are trying to make the system watertight. Ministers have conceded that, in the scheme of things, the problem is not terribly likely, but it could nevertheless happen.
We should look at our own experience. I was a councillor. Authorities almost always respond well to HMIE, but the response is sometimes not quite what we would want—we have all seen instances of that. Although we are talking about the ultimate sanction, I would feel more comfortable sleeping at night if I knew that the ministers had the power in question. It is simply a matter of sorting things out and making them watertight.
I certainly hope that the member sleeps well at night. I reassure my friends Mr Macintosh and Mr Stone that the SNP is not opposing for opposition's sake and I am sure that the same is true of the Conservatives, although I cannot offer assurances about that. I understand that this is the first time that the SNP has opposed a bill at stage 1 in the Parliament's five years. We have always given bills an opportunity to be considered, but we genuinely believe that this bill is a waste of the Parliament's time.
I conclude with one point. The point that the committee made about clarification of the trigger points is important. As a rank-and-file member of the Parliament who is not a member of the Education Committee, I would need to see some clarification as the bill goes through stage 2 and stage 3.
You have one minute.
I will conclude now—I am trying to give members more time.
I urge members to support the bill. I see no reason why we should not do so.
I occasionally take lessons from the Executive. Paragraph 4 of the Education Committee's report on the bill states that 3,400 consultation documents went out and 49 were returned. Similarly, I have consulted in order to discover why such a bill is before us. I, too, sent out 3,400 consultation documents and—curiously enough—received 49 replies. Initially, I was puzzled about which member of the Labour Party failed to return their response, but I realised that the minister would probably exclude himself from doing so.
At the risk of transgressing Chatham House rules that govern what happens in the members' lounge from time to time, I will tell members exactly why the bill is before us. Initially, there were three theories. The first theory was that the minister, in the ever-fevered competition to have the right to introduce a bill, won the three-legged race last summer on the banks of the Kelvin in the Labour Party's summer sports. However, I realise that that theory was entirely inappropriate because Peter Peacock, as a member for the Highlands, would be performing his civic duty of allowing the midges to bite him back on his native heath.
The second theory that was put forward was that he participated last Easter in the world politicians' arm-wrestling championship in the Bow Bar. However, it was put to me that the residents of Castle Bar in Inverness would feel greatly disquieted to know that their member was spending his money in someone else's establishment.
Therefore, I can exclusively reveal that Jessie Chisholm organised the Christmas party for the Labour Party last year—which was provisioned by McDonald's, of course—at which there was a bran dip and the minister drew out the right to introduce a bill and get his strike count up. It is no coincidence that bills are printed on purple paper, as the minister thought that it was time that he was in the bill.
I have a serious question for the minister about a trivial bill. How much did it cost to bring it forward? There is little cause for us to rejoice at the bill and little cause among SNP members that, for the first time, we have to oppose a bill at this stage of its process.
The reality is that many issues require to be addressed in our schools. Indiscipline is rife throughout Scotland. Inclusion is a very worthy aim, but it has side effects that are not yet fully taken into account and standards in schools are variable.
One of the key things that the Parliament—encouraged by the Executive—has done has been to give local authorities the power to promote well-being. That is something that my colleagues and I welcomed very much, as it touched on a matter of principle for the SNP. Decisions should be made as close as possible to the point of application. That is why, at every opportunity, we argue for more powers for the Scottish Parliament and the disconnection from our affairs of houses of little relevance that are located elsewhere. However, in the Executive's behaviour we often see things that run against that principle. For example, Mary Mulligan brought a Scottish statutory instrument to the Communities Committee that defined planning charges for all councils in Scotland. She did not want councils competing to be cheaper for planning charges. The bill is another example of the centre dictating to the periphery.
Ultimately, when power lies elsewhere, the assumption within councils will be that responsibility lies elsewhere. We risk breaking the link of accountability between local delivery and local accountability, and that could damage democracy itself. At 15:30 today, Andy Kerr said:
"I do not want to dictate from Edinburgh to local health boards".
We should not dictate to local councils either.
I have no significant problem with part 2 of the bill, as it amends existing legislative provisions for independent schools and introduces much-needed changes. However, I would prefer GTC registration to be part of that.
Like the education authorities and their representatives, I have considerable difficulty in accepting the principle that there is a need for the new ministerial powers of intervention. Education authorities and schools follow HMIE recommendations and, when issues are not resolved, there are sufficient powers in existing legislation to address that. At the heart of this proposal is the notion of failing schools. We do not require schools and local communities to hit the headlines; nor do we require to undermine any more of our public servants—in this case, teachers.
The Executive did not listen to chief constables with regard to the powers of dispersal in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. Like the chief constables in relation to that bill, the political leaders of local government and the officers in local government education departments to whom I have spoken see this bill as unnecessary.
Stewart Stevenson talked about theories. I have spoken to many teachers about the bill and have asked them what they think of it. They are at a loss to work out the real reason for it. They think that there is an underlying reason. It has been put to me by some teachers that the bill is intended to undermine the comprehensive system or to encourage local authorities to go along the public-private partnership route. That is not as funny as it may seem to the minister. If HMIE says that the state of a school building is undermining education there—as it did in a recent report on a small school in Cumnock—the parents of children at that school will be terrified that they are going to lose the school. If the minister had these powers of intervention, perhaps he would force local authorities to go down the PPP route of amalgamating small rural schools into bigger ones instead of providing proper funding to bring the schools up to standard and keep them. That is a serious point—it is not a joke.
Why are we not focusing on resourcing our schools with sufficient classroom supplies? This is the time when schools submit their requisitions, but I am hearing from teachers that there are cuts in the classroom supplies of textbooks and the other things that they need. We should be addressing that and ensuring that all our children and young people have equality of opportunity in terms of the size of classes in which they are taught and the range of choices that they have in the curriculum.
The new inspection regime is at a very early stage, and I believe that it should be given time to settle. It should be monitored and evaluated before such new powers as are proposed in the bill, which allow the minister to intervene, are put into effect.
I ask members to vote against the bill. It is a pity that we do not have a fuller chamber for this debate, because it is clear that a lot of money is being wasted on an unnecessary bill. I hope that common sense will come into play as quickly as possible. Let us finish the bill off and put it to bed today. We could separate part 1 from part 2; after all, there is no need to have part 1 in the bill.
As I have made clear, the bill is a waste of time and resources. We need to focus on other educational issues such as providing a more flexible curriculum. I am not going to be totally negative; good things are happening out there. However, we must put our efforts into ensuring that they work instead of wasting our time introducing powers that local authorities say that they do not require. Teachers are having a hard time trying to work out where the bill is coming from. Indeed, I want some answers to that question.
Many members on the Education Committee were opposed to the bill, so it was unfair to make out that—
But a majority was not opposed to it.
Okay—perhaps a majority voted for it. However, as the record will show, I said at the time that I saw absolutely no evidence to support part 1.
It is important to remember the context in which the bill has been introduced, because quite a few red herrings have been swimming around this afternoon.
As the minister and Ken Macintosh reminded us, the 2000 act set out a new framework for ensuring continuous improvement and the raising of standards in our schools. Indeed, as Rhona Brankin pointed out, it placed new duties and responsibilities on schools, education authorities and ministers. Moreover, it gave HMIE a new role in inspecting education authorities.
The bill's three aims are to complete the national improvement and support framework, to ensure that authorities take the action that HMIE has identified and—most important—to secure a child's right to a good education by seeking to ensure that no child should suffer as a result of inaction or ineffectiveness by the Executive, the local authority or the school. All have a duty to ensure that children receive a good education.
As members have pointed out, the power under section 70 of the 1980 act has been used only once. However, that provision allows ministers to take action if a local authority has breached its statutory duty, which does not include a failure to implement HMIE recommendations. The new powers will allow ministers to act if education authorities or grant-aided schools—we have not heard so much about them—do not take satisfactory action to secure improvements. We have also heard that the powers will be used by ministers only on HMIE's recommendation. As a result, the bill is not about ministers sending hit squads into so-called failing schools; instead, it seeks to ensure that local authorities take appropriate action.
Despite the hysterical language that has been used, agreeing to the bill at stage 1 does not endanger democracy. I agree totally with Kenneth Macintosh. COSLA is unhappy more about the vote that we took yesterday than about the vote that we will take today. It is none too cheerful with some members in relation to some of the committee's other activities. Because it is very upset with us at the moment, it will continue to take an oppositionist stance.
Robert Brown has pointed out that, without this bill, if HMIE concludes that an authority has not sufficiently addressed its recommendations for improvements and children's education is suffering, there is nothing that the inspectorate or ministers can do to improve matters. What do the Tories and the SNP suggest that we do in such circumstances? They have no answers, other than to say that we should wait and see and monitor the situation. If something happens, they will simply say, "Oh dear me! What will we do?"
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Does the member accept that ultimately the electorate are the custodians of the standards of service and that that applies as much to local government as it does to us?
I have no idea what the member said in Latin, because I do not speak it. However, I do not see how an individual child whose education might be suffering or their parents can be reassured by the suggestion that the local electorate will somehow sort things out for them.
The bill also proposes to change existing legislation that covers the registration and monitoring of independent schools. It will make the provisions for grant-aided schools equate to those for local authority schools. There was relatively little unhappiness about that and although someone made a reference to it, I cannot remember exactly what it was. The committee did not pick up much unhappiness about that from any representatives of the independent school sector.
Any notice or direction will now be addressed to the manager of a school rather than to an authority, and the bill will also change the 1980 act's definition of an independent school by removing the words "five or more". I was a little bit concerned when East Ayrshire Council raised the issue of whether that change might affect home educators—when a group of parents get together to educate a group of children at home—but the Executive officials assured us that parents providing home education in partnership with other parents would not be covered by the bill.
We have also heard that the bill replaces the independent schools tribunal, which was last used in 1977, with a right of appeal to the sheriff principal. I was pleased to hear from the minister that the Executive is prepared to consider the Subordinate Legislation Committee's suggestion that we should be using the affirmative procedure.
The bill has been opposed by COSLA and several other organisations, but it is important to bear in mind the fact that the bill has been supported by organisations representing the interests of young people, such as the Scottish Youth Parliament and Children in Scotland, and I will also be supporting the bill at stage 1.
In my winding-up remarks for the Conservatives, I will address parts 1 and 2 of the bill; not much has been said about part 2.
Part 1 has clearly been the controversial part of the bill. It has been said by my colleague Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and many others in the chamber that part 1 of the bill is unnecessary. There is no evidence that local councillors are not taking HMIE recommendations seriously. If they were not, there are existing powers in section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to help to deal with such a situation. As we heard from the minister, those powers have been used only once since they were introduced.
However, members do not have to take our word for it. Let us listen to the words of some Labour-controlled councils. In its evidence, South Lanarkshire council said:
"Since 1996 … there have been no occasions where HMIE have advised that schools and the authority have failed to make satisfactory progress on all recommendations contained in their reports. In these circumstances … the proposals set out within the consultation paper for new Ministerial powers would seem unnecessary."
Perhaps Kenny Macintosh might want to listen to East Renfrewshire Council, which said:
"there is to date no demonstrable evidence which would suggest that such intervention is necessary or indeed desirable".
There we have it. The fact is that existing legislation is sufficient to deal with such matters.
As Brian Adam said—and several other colleagues from across the chamber—the bill is simply a waste of parliamentary time. It is a classic example of the Executive wasting time on an irrelevant matter when there are so many other education matters that we have heard about, such as the problem with discipline in schools and the lack of parental choice that we could and should be dealing with.
I ask Murdo Fraser the same question that the minister put to Brian Adam. What would the Tories do when a school is failing and the local authority is not supporting it and turning it around?
That has not happened; it is not likely to happen; and if it did happen, the existing powers are almost certainly sufficient to deal with it.
I will respond to Jamie Stone's philosophical point. I was concerned to hear that he has sleepless nights worrying about what is going to happen in such a situation. He clearly believes that ministers do not have enough powers. If we in this Parliament had unlimited parliamentary time and resources, we could pass bills to deal with every possible contingency under the sun. We might pass a bill to say what would happen in the event of Jamie Stone miraculously becoming a green elephant overnight, which I do not think is likely. When there are demands on parliamentary time and resources, it is right that Parliament should make choices about what we spend our time and resources on. This bill is simply not a priority.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I am sorry but I need to make some progress.
It is not just a question of the bill being unnecessary. The bill might even be worse than that because it undermines local accountability. In its evidence, COSLA said that it
"has consistently argued against the Executive taking an increasingly interventionist approach to local government and local government services … COSLA's main concern is that the increasing taking of powers of intervention goes against the presumption of subsidiarity and establishes a trend towards centralisation".
The bill is not just unnecessary; it is part of a centralising agenda.
I move on to part 2 of the bill, which deals with independent schools. As well as providing choice for parents, independent schools make a valuable contribution to the Scottish economy. In Perth and Kinross, which falls within the Mid Scotland and Fife region, independent schools provide some 700 jobs and contribute some £13 million per annum. They are a major earner of foreign revenue. Times have not been easy for independent schools in recent years; as a result of rising cost pressures a number of schools have closed, including Rannoch School and Croftinloan School, and there have been mergers, such as that of Kilgraston School with Butterstone School.
The Scottish Council of Independent Schools has no strong objections to the bill, but there is concern that it might give rise to additional costs and a significant additional administrative burden. At a time when there is already concern about rising costs, any additional burdens must be resisted. The bill comes on top of the new cost of care commission inspections, about which a number of independent schools have contacted me. Here, as elsewhere in the economy, rising bureaucracy might be costing jobs. Ministers must take account of those factors in developing new laws and regulations.
SCIS has recommended changes to the bill at stage 2; I hope that the minister will listen to what it says as the bill proceeds. I was pleased to hear in Mr Peacock's earlier comments that he is inclined to consider changes at stage 2 to accommodate some of those concerns.
In conclusion, the best that can be said about the bill is that it is unnecessary. At worst it is centralising and will undermine local accountability. We should spend our time on more pressing matters.
As my SNP colleagues have intimated, we do not support the bill, as the aim of part 1 is to solve problems that do not exist. It might disturb the strong, positive relationships between Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, education authorities and schools. At best, the bill smacks of a bureaucratic tidying-up exercise. At worst, it conjures up images of—as Elaine Murray put it—overbearing ministers riding roughshod over local authorities and sending in hit squads to sort out failing schools. I wholly accept that that is not ministers' intention, but there is a distinct lack of clarity from officials and ministers on what the intervention would actually be. HMIE suggests that it is likely to involve a reinvigorated working relationship between HMIE and the local authority, but the minister should take time this afternoon to spell out precisely how the power will be used, as well as why. I also ask him to respond to the criticism that the Headteachers Association of Scotland made in its evidence to the committee. It said that the naming and shaming of a school that is subject to the ministerial power of intervention might be seriously counterproductive and would not lead to improvement in schools, which is the policy objective.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry. The member has had her say. She should let me finish the point.
It is not hard to envisage the devastating impact on the self-esteem of staff and students who were affected by the circumstances that I mentioned.
Several speakers highlighted the fact that neither the ministers nor HMIE were able to give any examples of situations that would have led HMIE to trigger ministerial intervention. We are asked to suspend our scepticism about the need for new powers on the basis that the inspection process and regime have changed and past experience is no longer relevant to future practice. I accept that the new proportionate inspection is different and more ambitious in that it stimulates continuous improvement in schools, but the basis on which it operates—co-operation and partnership between HMIE, education authorities and schools—is very much in place.
Given the nature of the relationship, it is almost impossible to conceive of a situation in which an education authority will not respond to the promptings of HMIE. In any case, my understanding is that inspection is cyclical; to coin a phrase, it is a process and not an event, so it has no end point as such.
It is hard not to be sympathetic to COSLA's view that there might be a hidden agenda to erode local control of education in favour of Scottish Executive control. I am aware that ministers have denied the existence of such a hidden agenda, but our view is that the bill has the potential to disturb relationships that are working well.
On the basis of the saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," we recommend that the Executive should monitor the newly introduced proportionate inspection process and report to Parliament in, say, three years' time, as my colleague Brian Adam suggested. At that time, we can judge whether we should spend parliamentary, Executive and civil service time on such legislation.
Does the member accept that the bill has overtones of George Orwell's Big Brother in "Nineteen Eighty-Four"?
Indeed it has. I see images of the minister bearing a big stick and going out into the country to beat education authorities about the head.
That would be more likely in the modern "Big Brother".
The modern "Big Brother" does not bear thinking about.
We believe that the time and resources that are being devoted to the bill would be better deployed on other, more pressing education issues, such as providing more resources for a more flexible curriculum, as Rosemary Byrne suggested, or tackling the problem of discipline in our schools.
As for part 2 of the bill, we understand the need to update legislation but believe that that can be progressed later without any damage to the education that independent schools provide. We reject the bill.
I listened with interest to the differing opinions that were voiced throughout the debate and I will use my time to address the detailed points that members made. However, I remain convinced that the bill is another step in fulfilling our ministerial commitment and our statutory duty to deliver improvement in school education.
Before dealing with specific points, I will take the opportunity to thank everyone who took the time to respond to our consultation and who gave evidence to the Education Committee. I also thank the committee members for their detailed consideration of the principles behind the bill and their comprehensive report.
Perhaps we cannot all agree on the necessity of part 1 of the bill, but I trust that the debate has clarified its aims and cleared up some misunderstandings about our proposals.
It has clearly been easier to reach consensus on the provisions that cover independent schools. At stage 2, we will consider the suggestions that have been made today about part 2, so that we create an up-to-date, effective and proportionate regulation system that does not unnecessarily increase the bureaucratic burden on independent schools. I accept Murdo Fraser's comment on that. It is important to have regard to that issue and we will try to do that.
I will return to part 1. I re-emphasise that before Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education refers an authority or school to ministers, it must inspect the authority or school. As a result, it must identify actions that are required to secure improvement. If HMIE concludes after sufficient time that satisfactory action has not been taken, it will finally have to judge the matter, in its professional opinion, to be sufficiently serious to warrant an enforcement direction. Only after those four serious steps have been taken will use of the powers in the bill be considered.
Members asked what type of intervention might follow. That will depend on the circumstances when HMIE makes its recommendations. The key is that if HMIE tells ministers that the necessary improvements are not taking place, ministers ought to have a power to ensure that they do take place. The bill is consonant with previous legislation. There is a gap. As Rhona Brankin said, a failure to implement HMIE recommendations does not constitute a breach of duty—that is the gap that we want to fill.
I found the SNP's arguments somewhat difficult to follow. On the one hand, Mr Gibson told us that we were intent on intervention, intervention, intervention. On the other, Mr Adam said that the powers will never be used. We heard two contradictory, overlapping arguments.
Other than the minister's belief that there is a gap, what independent evidence has been offered to suggest that anyone is concerned about this issue? [Interruption.]
I ask members to keep quiet.
I refer Brian Adam to the comments of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, which said that it supports the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 and regards the proposals in the bill as unfinished business. Others recognise that there is a gap. In closing that gap today, we take a small, but important step. The gap will continue to exist unless it is closed. It will continue to exist even if the HMIE inspection process is changed. It is no good our saying when there is a crisis that we knew that the gap existed but did nothing to close it. As Peter Peacock said in his opening speech, it is clear that these powers may need to be used only very rarely, but it would be no excuse for ministers to say that we realised in 2003 that we did not have the powers but took no action to secure them.
I turn briefly to the question of independent schools. I assure members that there are already close working relationships between HMIE and the care commission. They already conduct integrated inspections of pre-schools, secure accommodation and independent special schools and have produced a number of integrated reports based on their new model of joint working. That progress is in hand and is important. I am sure that we want to develop it.
I turn briefly to the issue that Mr Gibson raised of GTC registration of teachers. It is clear to us that some teachers in the independent sector are not currently registered and we recognise the concerns that members have expressed. [Interruption.]
Order.
In the bill we are taking a power to allow us to consider through regulations separate issues that would make a person not a proper person to be a teacher in an independent school. We have made it clear that the power will enable us to require mandatory GTC registration for teachers in the independent sector. Although the sector has taken significant steps to increase the level of registrations—as the member recognised—there is a wish to retain a degree of flexibility at the moment. We would prefer to take the power in secondary legislation, as that will allow us to consult further on the point, to calculate the impact on the sector of making registration mandatory and to take account of the changes to registration requirements that the GTC is already considering before bringing proposals before Parliament.
I recognise that Opposition members do not accept part 1 of the bill. I do not want to tempt fate, but I say to Brian Adam that although my house has not yet burned down I retain insurance. That is how we regard the power that the chamber is debating—as an end game that, importantly, is proportionate with existing legislation. I remain convinced that the principle of part 1 is correct. If HMIE tells us that necessary improvements are not taking place, ministers need the power to take action to ensure that pupils' education does not suffer.
Does the minister agree that it is deeply ironic that the Tories oppose this proportionate measure, given that they introduced the positively draconian section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980? I say to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton that if anything was Orwellian it was the Tories in that act.
The member makes a significant observation with which I could hardly disagree.
I welcome the general consensus on part 2 of the bill. I commend the School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Bill to Parliament and invite members to pass it at stage 1.