Chamber and committees

This is a welcome debate on the future of Scottish education and I compliment the cabinet secretary on the inclusive way in which she is trying to generate greater agreement, especially in Parliament, about how our education system should develop. Securing that greater agreement matters because the future of our country literally depends on it.

In working to establish that agreement, there has to be a willingness on all sides and among all partners to recognise the reality of Scottish education and to be prepared to consider evidence that supports the appropriate direction of travel. In that respect, the cabinet secretary might have to revise, refocus or even remove some of the precious interventions of some of her predecessors. I know that she will have the resolve to do so; her predecessors will just have to come to terms with that.

Equally, other parties might have to be prepared to recognise more than they are prepared to admit of the strengths that truly exist in Scottish education. I am constantly struck by the often negative characterisation of Scottish education that is expressed by Opposition parties in the chamber, compared with what Opposition members say about the performance and achievements of individual schools in their communities and constituencies when it comes to issuing press releases and getting media opportunities.

That is very nice, but it does not feel like what Liz Smith used to say to me fairly regularly during the five years for which I was Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills.

The national discussion has been well steered—not surprisingly, in my view—by Professor Alma Harris and Professor Carol Campbell. They have listened with care to a wide range of voices across our education system and have identified key values that should guide its development—values that are ambitious, inclusive and supportive. Those are good, strong and clear values that can provide the necessary focus in our education system. The key is what steps we take to turn those values into reality.

I would like to raise three key elements that, for me, are critical in that endeavour. The first of those elements is the importance of ensuring that every child or young person is ready and supported to learn. Poverty is by far the key inhibitor to ensuring that every child has a chance to learn and to grow. The work of the Scottish attainment challenge, the introduction of the national minimum school clothing grant and the impact of the Scottish child payment, which are just three Scottish Government measures, are key contributors to the process of ensuring that every child or young person is ready and supported to learn. The sincerity of others on the question of removing poverty would be demonstrated by their taking an approach to measures to tackle poverty that is different from the approach that the current United Kingdom Government is taking with its measures on welfare reform.

The second element is teacher agency and autonomy, to which the Conservatives’ amendment refers. Our children and young people will be able to learn only if they are guided by motivated professionals who have been able to develop and renew their professional capacity. I encourage the cabinet secretary to intensify the focus on that element of the agenda. That will involve Parliament supporting the cabinet secretary on the need for local authorities to create a more confident climate, in which professionals are able to deploy their strengths and their judgments in their practice. I met far too many teachers, and many headteachers, who felt constrained in developing their practice by the overbearing presence of their local authority employer. If Parliament is to value the importance of teacher agency, it must be prepared to help the Government to bring that about.

Stephen Kerr is not in the chamber at the moment but, in his speech, he set out a range of propositions, many of which I agree would be helpful in strengthening the professional capacity of teachers. However, they will all cost money—and lots of it. The Conservatives are against increasing tax—they want us to cut tax—and they have not supported investment in the education system. They need to turn their rhetoric into reality.

The third theme, which is encapsulated in the not-selected Lib Dem amendment, is the importance of parity of esteem for vocational qualifications. That is absolutely vital, crucial or seismic—members can call it what they want. It is what has driven so many of the improved outcomes that have been achieved by young people in recent years. Mr Rennie cited the Scottish credit and qualifications framework. The development of new qualifications and awards in recognition of the potential in every young person is central to ensuring that our education system lives up to the values of the national discussion of being ambitious, inclusive and supportive.

Without wishing to sound like an old man, one of the biggest differences that I see in our education system today compared with when I was in school in the 1970s and 1980s is the focus on ensuring that every young person goes on to achieve a good and positive outcome. I received a fantastic state education in that period and went on to achieve a good outcome, but that was not the case for most of my peers. One of the strengths of Scottish education is in ensuring that every young person gets a positive outcome. That should be central to the national discussion.

For the sake of completeness, I need to advise the Parliament that Mr Lumsden is wholly incorrect. The allocation of funding for swimming pools was made in the United Kingdom budget of October 2022, so it formed part of the block grant that I distributed in December 2022. What Mr Lumsden has just put to the minister is therefore wholly wrong.

I think that Willie Rennie has alighted on a very serious issue about the length of contracts that are given to newly qualified teachers. Does he acknowledge that not all such issues—in fact, none of them—are in the control of the Government, and that all of them are in the control of local authorities, which have been given the line-of-sight resources that should enable them to give full-time contracts? What does Mr Rennie propose be done in those circumstances?

Oh! I seem to have touched a raw nerve with that comment. I will give way to Pam Duncan-Glancy first and then Liz Smith.

Would Meghan Gallacher like to tell Parliament how much more money the Conservatives would have given to local authorities in the budget propositions that they put to the finance minister for the current year’s budget?

Does Sue Webber honestly believe that the statement that she just put on the record is in any shape or form compatible with Liz Smith’s intervention on me a few moments ago?

Will the member take an intervention?

There is very high satisfaction with Scottish education and very high confidence—as recent opinion polling demonstrated—in the Government’s stewardship of education. The situation is not helped by Mr Choudhury’s characterisation that the Government has “wrecked” Scottish education. What sort of language is that? Mr Choudhury cannot substantiate his point, so that was inappropriate language to use to characterise the situation in the debate. I note that Pam Duncan-Glancy did not use her intervention to come to his defence or to justify his characterisation.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the future of the Dewars centre, which is adjacent to my constituency boundary, in the city of Perth, and is in the constituency of my colleague Jim Fairlie, who I anticipate will contribute to the debate.

As Murdo Fraser has set out, the Dewars centre is an important and significant facility that is very much the home of curling and has attracted a formidable amount of the talent that Scotland has produced in the sport. Murdo Fraser correctly attributes a huge amount of appreciation to the achievements of Eve Muirhead, who originates from Blair Athol in my constituency and has gone on to have the most extraordinary career in international curling, becoming an Olympic champion in 2022. This parliamentary debate gives me a welcome opportunity to compliment her and her squad.

Of course, Eve Muirhead is not the first woman to blaze a trail for curling in Scotland. This debate also gives me a really special opportunity to pay tribute to one of my late dear neighbours, Frances Brodie, who was the driving force behind the group that established the first world ladies curling championship in 1979, and who chaired the first official ladies committee of the International Curling Federation—later renamed the World Curling Federation. Frances was a most wonderful lady, who graced all aspects of the life of our village. From that very quiet Perthshire village, she made a phenomenal contribution to opening the sport of curling to women. She was in every respect a true trailblazer. In 1989, her contribution to world curling was recognised by the federation with the introduction of an award in her name, which has been presented at the conclusion of each women’s curling championship since then. The recipient of the honour, who is selected by the curlers participating in the event, is the curler who

“by deed and action in the course of their performance, best exemplified the traditional curling values of skill, honesty, fair play, friendship and sportsmanship.”

I cannot think of a finer description of Frances Brodie, so I am delighted to have the opportunity to put that on the record today.

As Murdo Fraser said, the issues that the Dewars centre faces are challenging. David MacLehose, the chair of Live Active Leisure, cited the significant pressures of reduced customer income, rising inflation, high energy costs and the impact of long-term public finance constraints. Those are issues with which we all wrestle. As I told Parliament at the time, I set the budget for 2023-24—one of my last acts in Government—in the most challenging context in which I have ever had to operate. The pressure on the public finances will be felt by Governments, local authorities and leisure trusts into the bargain. It is therefore essential that, in every step that we take, we try to ensure that the resources are available to support activities that are precious in our society.

However, we must also recognise that that often involves hard decisions. I have to make the point that I was prepared to take a hard decision to increase the resources that are available in the Scottish budget by increasing taxation, but Mr Fraser and his colleagues were not prepared to support us in that endeavour. There are hard choices to be made if we want public expenditure to be used to support facilities of this type. [Interruption.] Therefore, if we are to have debates of this nature in Parliament, we have to follow them up by being prepared to take the hard decisions that are necessary to increase the resources that are available—I hear the usual muttering from the Conservatives that I always hear when I point out the hard financial realities that exist in this respect. Although I am wholly supportive of the future of the Dewars centre, I point out the hard financial realities that the Conservatives always duck in this chamber.