Chamber and committees

The minister will be as pleased as I am that the low-emission zone scheme for Glasgow has been agreed to. I know that the changes will be challenging for some, but they will deliver significant benefits.

How will the scheme help to improve air quality in Glasgow city centre, which is part of my constituency of Glasgow Kelvin? What other impacts can we hope to see as a result of the lowering of emissions in the city centre?

I will just crack on. I am nearly done.

Other examples of game-changing Scottish Government action on child poverty include doubling the child payment to £20, increasing it to £25 and extending it to all children in low-income families up to the age of 16 by the end of this year. The Child Poverty Action Group has reported that the cost of bringing up a child in Scotland will be reduced by 31 per cent—nearly £24,000 a year—once the Scottish child payment is doubled and the expansion of free school meals provision is fully delivered.

However, those actions are being taken in the face of a UK Tory Government that seems to be determined to increase inequality instead of reducing it, so the Scottish Government is trying to deal with the issue with one hand tied behind its back. Inequality is a blight on Scotland and it is a blight on the whole of the UK. The difference is that we, in Scotland, have a Government that understands that and takes action to address it. I therefore welcome the motion and think that even Miss Honey would defer to the words of Kofi Annan:

“There is no duty more important than ensuring that their rights are respected, that their welfare is protected, that their lives are free from fear and want and that they can grow up in peace.”

I am delighted to speak in this debate reflecting on the many vital actions that the Scottish Government is taking to reduce the cost of the school day for children from low-income families.

I welcome the Government’s recognition that the state of affairs is unacceptable. The motion demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that children can participate fully in all aspects of school life without additional financial costs. Education should, of course, be free for all children.

As a teacher with 30 years’ experience in the classroom, I have seen the impact on the child who is not able to go to the Christmas fayre or who is left in the classroom because they do not have a ticket or they do not have 30p to adopt a soft toy. I note the thoughtfulness of teachers in giving their own money to children to enable them to buy popcorn or guess how many sweets are in the jar.

In fact, teachers, in collaboration with parent councils, have long been aware of the need to ensure that no child is excluded. I am sure that we all remember participating in sponsored walks and asking friends and family to contribute. Perhaps some of us would have provided more benefit by taking part in sponsored silences. Not wanting to come across as a total Miss Trunchbull, I accept and believe that those activities are a vital component of the school day and calendar. They contribute to the school and the wider community in so many fun ways. Of course, all children should participate fully, but without experiencing the stigma of not having the financial resource.

The Child Poverty Action Group’s cost of the school day campaign focuses on raising awareness of disproportionate and hidden costs from dress-down days to dressing-up days, charity support days and other fundraising events. It also highlights the cost of basic necessities such as stationery, uniform, food and transport and provides a wealth of creative ways for schools to identify and tackle those costs. I participated in the pilot training programme in Glasgow, and not only did it challenge my assumptions but it led the school to have a wider re-evaluation of the school calendar of events in order to cut out any additional expenses for children and families.

The Scottish Government has rightly committed substantial funds to addressing the cost of the school day, including uniforms, meals and transport. The school uniform grant currently stands at £120 per eligible primary child and £150 per eligible secondary young person, and £11.8 million of additional funding has been provided to local authorities to enable that.

All children from P1 to P5 and eligible children in P6 and P7 have been in receipt of free school lunches since January. I welcome the fact that the provision will be extended to all children in primary and special schools in the course of this session of Parliament. It should be noted that the policy of providing universal free school meals saves all families an average of £400 per child per year.

The level of child poverty in Scotland is 6 percentage points below the UK average, standing at 24 per cent compared with 30 per cent in England and 31 per cent in Wales. It matches the level in Northern Ireland, which is also 24 per cent. Furthermore, child poverty in Scotland is projected to fall to its lowest level in nearly 30 years as a result of the actions that have been taken by the Scottish Government to date and commitments in the second tackling child poverty delivery plan.

Teachers throughout Scotland do a fantastic job educating our children about political literacy in an impartial and responsible manner. Will the cabinet secretary recommit to empowering our teachers, through the curriculum for excellence—which the Tories want to tear up—to equip our young people with the knowledge, skills and understanding that they need to succeed in life?

I am proud of the record of Glasgow, and of Glasgow Kelvin in particular, of supporting asylum seekers. What is the First Minister’s reaction to the sending of asylum seekers who arrive in the United Kingdom to a detention facility in Rwanda for processing?

My next question, which is in a similar vein, is for Andrea Bradley and Mike Corbett. Having worked extensively in schools, I know that we will want to ensure that money is used for additional staffing, because those staff will be in front of the children, and that contact between experts and children will help the children directly. However, I have seen evidence of additional funding being used to increase the number of principal teachers. I therefore want to drill down into the issue of extra management time and the value of money being used for that instead of putting more experts in front of pupils and increasing contact between pupils and teachers, which I believe is a good way of increasing attainment and achievement. Andrea, do you have anything to say about that?

I want to finish off by bringing in Jim Thewliss. How can headteachers be supported in evaluating the effective use of the additional funding and empowered enough to stop doing the stuff that does not work, keep doing the stuff that does and consider doing different things, too?

I want to look more specifically at how headteachers involve teachers, parents and pupils in deciding their priorities for allocating attainment challenge funding. I will start with Greg Dempster. Have headteachers had enough support or training from local authorities so that they are well informed and well equipped to make decisions about the additional funding that has been provided?

Did you want to add anything, Mike?

Headteachers get promoted because they are teachers and because of their skills in being expert leaders of learning, but then they have to become financial wizards in making best use of funds and being accountable for sometimes vast amounts of money. That scrutiny and responsibility have to be supported. I suppose that what I am asking is whether they are getting enough support in that respect and whether that is the best use of their time.

You talked about additional support for teachers who are pressed for time. What would that support look like?