 Fel, mae'n gwybod i'r cyfrifiad Cymru erbyn y clywed ddangos. Felly, mae'n gwybod i'r clywed ddangos i'r cyfrifiad cyfrifiad Cymru, ac mae'n gydag i gwybod i'r cyfrifiad cyfrifiad Cymru, ac mae'n ddweud i ddweud o SNP 11301 yn y myfwm Liz Smith o gyfodod cyfosig y ffordd i Gap Ndysgolau. Felly, rwy'n gwybod i'n gwybod i'r ffwrdd i'r ddweud i'r bwysig o'r ddweud i'r Brat captions yw dyfyn i fwy co llawn o dd entirelyll yn Llyrwy G Helen Smith i bawb 14 peque. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The parties in the chamber frequently disagree on education policy. No doubt about that. Partly is that we have different principles when that comes to underpinning of prospective party manifestos, but all too often that is because we sometimes finding it difficult to agree on the nature or the extent of a problem. The amendments make it clear that during the debate we will argue again about policy. Having read about what the other parties have had to say about this issue over some considerable period of time, I do not believe that any of us will have too much difficulty when it comes to acknowledging the full nature and extent of the problem, that is when it comes to accepting the stark evidence that lays bare the differences in attainment between different schools and different communities. For the moment, I want to deal specifically with attainment rather than with achievement. If you look at the overall attainment across Scotland for the last two academic years, there has been a very small improvement, as measured by the headline statistic. However, that masks the true picture for far too many young people. As Ruth Davidson highlighted in her recent conference speech when she spelt out the Conservative education policies, fewer than 20 per cent of pupils from the most deprived areas were attaining five standard grade credit passes, yet 60 per cent of their peers from the more affluent communities were managing to do so. In a number of local authorities, the chance of a pupil from a disadvantaged area attaining these qualifications, in a minute if I may, were attaining these qualifications and making it four to five times less likely than the chance for a pupil from a more affluent home. I think that we would all agree about the importance of closing the attainment gap. I think that we would all accept the importance of closing the attainment gap. Can I ask the member whether she would, however, disassociate herself from any attempts to misrepresent the nature of the problem? In particular, I am thinking of some extraordinary comments in the mail on Sunday this week, where the claim was made that 20 per cent of our pupils are in a school where they have literally no chance whatsoever to go into either tertiary education, skills training or any kind of productive activity. I hope that she will either name these schools or disassociate herself from such a claim. I completely disassociate myself. I did not say that, but I did not say that, cabinet secretary. That is for the newspaper to answer, but I did not say that. You will know from my speech to follow that I disassociate myself completely from that. As I do from several other bland statements, I do not think that I will go to the root of this problem. Can I get back to the fact that the attainment gap—indeed, it is mentioned in the Labour amendment—is very important when it comes to the earliest possible years? It can be absolutely no surprise that, by the time that pupils come to study for their higher grades, only one in 10 will attain at least three A grades. Worse still is the fact that only 2.9 per cent of those disadvantaged pupils attain those grades, whereas 20 per cent of those from the better off families manage to do so. That means that seven times more are likely to do well in your hires if you are born into a more affluent family. In Edinburgh, which is supposedly one of the areas that often can boast better results, only 1.1 per cent of pupils from the poorest 20 per cent of households is attaining three A's or more. That is precisely six pupils. It exposes the fact that it is not just a gap in the terms of the different local authority areas, it can actually be a gap between children who might just live a few streets apart. I believe that that is a bleak picture. No one—whether they are Conservatives, whether they are nationalists, whether they are Liberals or Socialists—can deny those findings or the deep-rooted unfairness that accompanies them. In short, far too many of our young people are attending schools that, year on year, do not perform as well as they shoot. This chamber knows only too well that I am not a fan of too many league tables, but I do believe in the important ones. I also believe in the ones that measure a school against its own successes or failure, since I think that those often provide the greatest accuracy when it comes to making comparisons. I recognise what the Cabinet Secretary has said in the past about self-improvement schools' pathfinder, which I think can be extremely important. I also believe in the need to be brutally honest. In March 2013, the Cabinet Secretary told BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning programme that Scotland does not have failing schools. The phrase failing schools might not be fashionable or one that sits easily with the educational parlance these days, which always seems to have some tendency towards mollification of a problem, but it is time to acknowledge that a few schools in Scotland and a few departments in some schools are failing to deliver the results that they should be. I wonder if the member would at least countenance the possibility that many of Scotland's schools, particularly those who serve the private communities, are facing a range of external forces that are acting against some of the very strong efforts by teachers and educationalists to counterbalance those, many of which are being driven by the dogmatic agenda of her colleagues at Westminster. Liz Smith. Of course, I accept that poverty is a serious problem. Who could not do that? Let's be absolutely clear about the issue that poverty delivers for some of those communities. Let's not pretend that there aren't some schools that are not delivering the results that they should be because the statistics over a long period of time show that we are not getting as good results for some of our children as we ought to be. The cabinet secretary has said in his amendment that we are performing very well against our international competitors. We are performing quite well, but we are not doing as well as we ought to be. If you look at the statistics that you can measure over a long period of time, it is crystal clear that we are not performing as well as we should be. People like Keir Bloomer or Lindsay Paterson or Peter Downs have serious concerns because this is the very moment when we need to deliver about competitive advantage. Why is it, when we come to the measurements, whether it is pearls or tims or whatever it might be, why is it that the Scottish Government has decided to take us out of some of those measurements because they give us first-class information about how well we are doing? If I felt that the other parties in this chamber had the policies to deliver the change that will provide the benefit to those disadvantaged children, then perhaps I could take some of those interventions. However, I do not, because the statistical fact of the matter is that too many schools are not delivering the results that they ought to be. What do we have to do about that? We have to be brutally honest, but it starts with addressing the poverty issue. I know that the Conservative Party and the Liberals have been targeted, very heavily targeted, about the problems of poverty. Today, the Scottish Government has released some information about how well the economy is starting to do. Nicola Sturgeon said just a little while ago when she was putting together the child poverty strategy for Scotland, our approach 2014-17. Much has changed, she said, since 2011, and the latest published figures show decreases in the numbers of children living in poverty. Today's statistics show that there has been a substantial improvement in the fall of those children in work-less families. One thing to do to ensure that we do not have as much poverty as we should is to make sure that we are targeting economic growth. We have to be in a scenario in which we benefit the companies and the people who are offering those skills in a way that they can deliver jobs, not just the highly skilled jobs but upskilling right across the economy. I think that there are some quite positive signs about that. However, yes, I fully admit that poverty is a difficult issue, but it is not something that we are going to accept is the problem for this party on this side of the chamber. I absolutely refute any suggestion that the Conservatives are comfortable with poverty. We are not, and this is why we are standing up and being brutally honest about this problem. I will not at this stage, if you do not mind. On the second issue, I think that we need a complete change in structure. I have in front of me some very interesting comments that the cabinet secretary himself said. He said that education is a field in which we have traditionally excelled, which in recent years, with the removal of a competitive environment and a weakening of our national as well as an individual striving for excellence, we have slipped down the ranks. He said that many commentators have noticed the success of Sweden of education vouchers in a debate about their utility in Scotland would be useful. He said that the consumer would be able to choose the best facilities for their particular needs. He said that choice and diversity are the hallmarks of a mature and confident society. Cabinet secretary, this could be a Conservative party manifesto. Why is it, as cabinet secretary, that you will not be able to address some of those principles? We need diversity. We need a system that offers far greater opportunity for those youngsters. On the back of that, can I say something about the Wood commission? I believe fundamentally that Sir Ian Wood is trying to deliver an awful lot of this. He wants diversity. He wants the best for every child in Scotland. He is saying to us that, for some children who are not going to be fully motivated in school, there have to be other opportunities. However, the real problem in Scotland is that schools are accountable to local government and to national government. They are not as accountable as they should be to parents, pupils and teachers. That has to change. Cabinet secretary, you cannot deny that that is something that you spoke about when you wrote your book Grasping the Thistle. It is so important—if I may just a minute—that we take on board the ideas of diversity and choice and look around the world at the countries that have been doing well in their school education. It is those countries that have had that diversity and choice. John Mason. The member accepted that, certainly in my area, when the parents were asked if they wanted more involvement in running the schools, they basically said no. Liz Smith. No, I do not accept that. I will tell you why. I have been looking at some of the inspection reports for schools across some of our weaker areas in Dundee, Edinburgh, Perth and Glasgow. Those make very interesting reading about how they have managed to turn round their attainment levels as a result of top-class leadership of much greater engagement of parents who have actually said that they want to have greater diversity within their school systems and a back-to-basics strategy in literacy and numeracy. My two colleagues, Margaret Mitchell and Murdo Fraser, will say a bit more about that. Those inspection reports tell a very important story, but they tell the same story that people like Peter Peacock, when he was education secretary, described when he was looking at how individual headteachers and their creator diversity had to be part of reducing the attainment gap. To be truly successful, I think that we have to change the system. The system at the present time is a one-size-fits-all system. That, cabinet secretary, is something that you addressed when you were writing your book, because you said that the one-size-fits-all system does not work. I would be interested to hear when you make your contribution this afternoon as to what it is that you feel has changed that will not allow that policy just now, because it is about accountability. It is about how well we offer the educational experience to our young children. I do not believe for a minute that any of us in this chamber will walk away from this problem, but we must be absolutely honest about the scale of the problem, the fact that it has lasted for a long period of time, that we have, in the words of Keir Bloomer, been rather complacent and congratulatory about it. We have to accept that there is a significant problem for too many of our disadvantaged young people who are not getting the best opportunity to do well. I may finish on that point, because I think that it is the most important. We can agree, I think, I hope, on the nature and the extent of the statistics that define that entertainment gap, but we will probably remain wholly divided about the policy that will fix the problem. Clearly, the other parties by their action this afternoon on the amendments do not like our ideas. To them, I say this, where have your policies got us so far? Where is the evidence that Scotland has actually regained her world-leading place in school education? Where is the evidence that, if you come from the least well-off communities, you stand as good a chance as anyone from the more affluent areas? At present, that evidence does not exist. It is time to stand up and be counted, and this party has the courage of its convictions to take head-on that problem. I move the motion in my name. I remind members that they could please address their remarks through the chair and also let the chamber know that this debate is tight for time. I now call on Michael Russell to speak to it on move amendment 11304.3, cabinet secretary, maximum 10 minutes. I am very pleased that we are having this debate, because I want to reflect on the hard work that is being done by teachers and pupils across Scotland in their schools. I want to reflect on the progress that they are making to close the attainment gap. I want to reflect on the success of curriculum for excellence, which has increased diversity, a Cure-Bloomer invention, which has increased diversity, as has the devolving of powers to schools. I want to talk about what works in Scottish education and what we should be proud of and what more we can do. We have seen progress wherever we look. Curriculum for excellence has been extensively rolled out. It is now embedded in schools as a way that we do education in Scotland. It has raised the bar in terms of attainment. This year, we saw a record number of higher and advanced higher results across the system. The new national qualifications have brought deeper learning, a greater emphasis on analysis, engagement, understanding and diversity, and have represented a decisive shift for the better in Scottish education. Against every main measure, despite what you have heard, Scotland schools are moving in the right direction. The racist PISA study reinforces our international standing. Coupled with that, we have a record high number of school leavers in positive destinations, more new refurbished schools and the lowest teacher unemployment in the United Kingdom. Indeed, there is so much that is happening across education. In early years, in primary and secondary, in colleges, in universities, in skills, in vocational education, earlier this year, we learned from the ONS—much beloved of the Tories—that Scotland is actually the most highly educated country in Europe and amongst the best educated in the world. We are within that, making substantial progress in tackling the most stubborn problem of all, that of the attainment gap, which was a yawning chasm before devolution, and it remained far too wide under the Labour-Liberal Scottish Executive. However, there is one area in education that nothing changes. That is, I am sorry to say, the relentless negativity of the Conservatives towards the tremendous work that is being done in our schools day in and day out. Now we hear—again—an approach that is going down the road of demonising individual schools and will then, us, the Tories, go on to demonise individual teachers. I hope that no part of this chamber will join the Tories in that. Liz Smith. It is an outrageous remark to make. We are not in any way demonising. In fact, we are praising some of the schools that have done extremely well. Cabinet Secretary, you have to address commentators such as Keir Bloomer and Lindsey Paterson, who are, despite some of the good things that are happening in Scottish education, quite rightly pointing to the fact that far too many of our disadvantaged youngsters do not have the same chances as are more affluent children. Cabinet Secretary. I am going to address in my speech because that is a matter in which we are all working together to accept the Tories. I am certain that we will hear a further negative pessimistic picture from all the Tories, but I have to say that Scotland's schools and Scotland's performance can pay us strongly when measured against international standards and it is improving in the main. Rather than dragging down our education system, perhaps Liz Smith and her colleagues could do well to get out more into our schools and see exactly what was happening. Liz Smith has a habit of scaremongering. She did it in 2010 when she said that CFE would be nothing more than a curriculum for confusion. Two months later, CFE was successfully introduced into secondary schools. In February 2012, she predicted disaster over the introduction of the new exams. She demanded that the old standard grade should be retained, but the new exams went ahead this year without any significant problems. Let's move on with Liz Smith. She predicted disaster over the Commonwealth Games. Subsequently, those were described by Prince Imran, the president of the Commonwealth Games Federation, as the best games ever. By any standards, Liv Smith as a prophetess has not got a great track record. I welcome any debate on closing the attainment gap, what we are doing to create equity in education, but we cannot escape from the fact that the real enemy to progress is poverty and poverty is being exacerbated by the Westminster Government. The Westminster Government is attacking the poor for being poor, and that is nothing short of a disgrace. With the powers of independence, the powers of a normal state, we could have used tax, welfare and labour market regulation to develop a solution that is right in this context, but Scotland did not vote yes. Now we must all deal with the consequences of that decision. One major consequence in this portfolio is how we are going to make real and sustained progress in narrowing the attainment gap. As it stands, welfare reforms at Westminster are going to make this worse. For decades, Westminster's record has been abysmally poor, but now the Institute for Physical Studies estimates that an additional 50,000 Scottish children will be living in relative poverty by 2020 because of UK welfare reforms. When housing costs are taken into account, that figure could be as high as 100,000. That is nothing less than a sustained attack on Scotland's poorest children. We cannot fully mitigate against it, but we will do what we can to limit the worst impacts. Within this portfolio, we are doing just that. We recognise that the problems of poverty cannot be stopped at the school gates, but our education must do more to raise attainment. Curriculum for excellence is, in itself, an important development for that, so is getting it right for every child, so is developing Scotland's young workforce. Together, they are creating the expectations and we are building on them with things like the partnership programme that I shall touch on in a moment. However, instead of seeking every opportunity to criticise, Liz Smith should get out there and meet the young people who are being affected by the benefits of those programmes. She should get out there and meet Rhys from Coatbridge. In fact, she could have met him first of all in the video that I showed at the start of the Scottish Learning Festival, which I distributed to members of the education committee and they welcomed to have a copy of it. When I met him, Rhys was a primary seven pupil at St Bartholomews. His headteacher had already been a keen adopter of the attainment methodology. He had worked one-on-one with Rhys to help him to make progress. When I asked Rhys in his school what difference that had made, he had a devastatingly simple and direct answer. I am not afraid of my lessons anymore, he said. Rhys has now made a successful transition to St Ambrose High in Coatbridge. He is continuing to enjoy his lessons. Closing the attainment gap is about that work that is happening now all over Scotland. One-to-one work with individuals like Rhys is about the inspirational actions of the team at Bellshill academy, who identified meeting the local authority average for higher passes as a key objective, and then worked with individual pupils to help to get the result that they needed. Help with things as simple as having somewhere to do their homework. It is about working with parents too, as you can see in Westerhales, where the senior management team ensures that every parent is able to engage with the school on their own terms. That is a reality of improvement. It is about changing lives and prospects one by one in some of the most troubled and difficult areas of Scotland. It is being done right now, and we will do more and more of it. Surely, the chamber should support that work and not attack it out of lack of knowledge or demonise schools. No-one would deny that there is a fantastic amount of work being done in Scottish schools. If you think that we are saying otherwise, then I am sorry that you have so misinterpreted the situation. What we are pointing to, quite rightly, and which I believe every parent in the land wants addressed, is a situation where far too many of our youngsters do not have the same opportunities to succeed as other children. That surely is the most important thing that we can do. It is something that has not just developed, but has been going on for some time. We once had a fantastic reputation for education in Scotland. We have in some sectors of education in Scotland— Can I hurry you along, please? We must get back to that. Cabinet Secretary, we must get back to you last minute. We must, Presiding Officer, not get back to it by demonising the poor, by demonising schools, by demonising teachers. We will get back to it with the type of work that we are doing now. That is worthy of support, not being attacked. In June this year, I launched the raising attainment for all programme. 12 local authorities—over 150 schools—signed up to become part of a learning community, forensically focused on closing the equity gap. We are going to expand that even further. We have a nationally co-ordinated programme, led by Education Scotland, to partner schools so that they can share best practice. We have a co-ordinated programme of literacy and numeracy hubs. We have access to education funds. We have established the Scottish College for Educational Leadership. It is up and running. There are a range of things happening, good things happening, which we can work on together. What we are hearing this afternoon is the old story. It is to go back to the things that we do not want to do. It is trying to insist on progress that we are already making to support that. I do not think that there is anywhere else in the UK, or indeed in Europe, that prioritising educational attainment as much as we are and the PISA results show it. We have a unique curriculum that is fit for the future. Schools are eager for success—a system that is supporting them. I have confidence in our schools to live on that programme. I am move the amendment to that motion and I implore the Tories to be part of success and not try and drag it down. Thank you. I now call on Neil Bibby to speak to and move amendment 11304.2, maximum six minutes, Mr Bibby. I would like to start by welcoming the debate brought forward by the Scottish Conservatives this afternoon. I would say at the outset that in moving our amendment that we can support the Government amendment on the basis of it recognising the challenges that we face, and we must work together on that, but that will not deter us from raising those challenges in this debate. I know that Smith has raised the number of challenges for the Government this afternoon. Addressing the educational attainment gap and educational inequality is one of the biggest issues facing this Parliament and this country. This is an opportunity for us to put forward suggestions as well as scrutinising the statistics, the research and also the Government's record since 2007. Before proposing the solutions, we need to analyse and identify the problems, because there is a huge amount of work to be done to address the attainment gap in our education system and the inequality that it creates. As Liz Smith said, the statistics show that there has been a small reduction in the attainment gap of pupils from the least and most deprived areas, but none of us can claim that there has been a significant or meaningful reduction in that gap. There is still a substantial attainment gap between pupils in terms of average tariff score, positive follow-up destinations, and in literacy and numeracy levels. Scottish Labour agrees that there needs to be a focus on the early years and on literacy and numeracy. We believe that it is something that all parties should prioritise and that all parents can support. The 2013 Scottish survey of literacy and numeracy showed that there is a substantial gap when it comes to literacy, and the most recent 2014 reports focused on numeracy were only highlighted that numeracy rates were lower than compared to 2011 for primary 4 and primary 7 pupils. However, the inequality of opportunity is no more demonstrated than when it comes to statistics relating to looked after children. Most recent Government research showed that only 2 per cent of looked after children initially went to university compared to 36 per cent of all school leavers. I do not pretend that that is an easy problem to fix. Improvements to after-care support were made in the children and young people bill, but we also need to improve the standards of support that looked after children can expect during their school education. John Mason. I thank the member for giving way. I am interested in his point about looked after children. I wonder if he would agree with me that that suggests that there are a lot of problems outwith the schools that are coming into the schools that the schools need to deal with, rather than are necessarily being caused by the schools as the Conservatives seem to suggest. Neil Bibby. I think that it is a mixture of both. I will definitely accept your point. From our part, the Scottish Labour Party is developing a strategy to deal with the attainment gap that includes reducing the gap before children start school through increasing and improved pre-school provision, removing barriers to young people's opportunities and learning at school and supporting families directly through initiatives such as family centres. In May this year, Scottish Labour published our Mind the Gap challenge paper that set out 12 policy priorities in the area, including focusing on crucial early years of a child's life, building relationships between family schools and communities, expanding wraparound care and removing barriers to inclusions such as the cost of schools' trips and after-school activities. The early years is a key focus of our work, but we also need to examine if our primary and secondary school education system is well enough equipped and resourced to face that huge challenge of closing the attainment gap. Despite the hard work and professional commitment of teachers, parents and pupils, the Scottish education system is being stretched and that is through no fault of teachers, parents and pupils. We all know that teachers in Scotland are facing significant workload issues at this moment in time. Surveys by teaching unions indicate that the Government is failing to address those workload issues. Not only are teachers still teaching new courses and preparing pupils for new exams, there are also far fewer teachers in our classrooms. How can we seriously reduce the attainment gap, given those circumstances? Since 2007, under the Scottish National Party Government, we have seen a cut of nearly 4,000 teachers. That matters because teachers and parents regularly tell me and others that they feel more time teachers can spend individually with pupils the better. At the education committee recently, the cabinet secretary in response to teaching unions' concerns said, as for teacher numbers, I am very keen to maintain and, if possible, to expand them. Yet, just two ladies later in the budget, there was no mention from John Swinney and his statements of resources for maintaining, let alone increasing, teacher numbers. I hope that that will soon be addressed. The number of teachers is one issue, but the issue of inequalities is also linked to the increased reliance on private tuition. In March this year, a Hollywood magazine survey exposed that there had been a 300 per cent increase in the use of private tutors in the past year alone, 95 per cent of which come from state schools. Some families worried about their children passing their exams were found to be spending £1,900 a year to get an hour a week of extra tuition. Parents have to do what is right for their children, but it is concerning that we are seeing such an increased reliance on private tuition. Families from the most deprived areas cannot afford anywhere near £1,900 a year for private tuition. If this trend continues, this is only going to entrench and widen the attainment gap. I hope that the Scottish Government can look at the issue and respond specifically on that point. Another issue of inequality in our present education system that has been highlighted this week—I am sorry, I do not have time to talk about it—is the issue of charges over exam appeals. The judgment on appeals should be based on the opinion of teachers and relevant teachers and not on pupils or schools' ability to pay. The Scottish Government should urgently review what is happening there. I hope that the minister and the cabinet secretary will address those issues today. There are, of course, many other challenges that Liz Smith and others will raise, and I hope that we will get to discuss them in this debate. I move the amendment in my name. I turn to the open debate. There is no time available. George Adam is to be followed by Jane Baxter. I welcome this debate because I want to talk about some of the many positive things that are happening throughout the country in education. I agree that we must do all we can to bridge the attainment gap to ensure that our young people can achieve their full potential. It is also true that, as the Conservative motion says, the greatest challenge facing Scottish education is the existence of the significant pupil attainment gap between different schools and different communities. I have to ask myself where the Tory has been for the past couple of years, because the Tory arguments are far too simplistic. The issue is larger than that. Poverty is a key part of the challenges that we have in that issue. The current Tory welfare reforms are not helping families throughout Scotland with that. The motion saying that it would give a school head teacher full control of a devolved budget might do a lot of things, but it will not do much to alleviate poverty in our communities. In the real world, the Scottish Government has ensured that there are a record number of school leavers in work, training and education. The Scottish Government has ensured a strong commitment to driving improvement, ensuring equality and attainment, to ensure that all young people achieve their full potential. Performance has improved against all 10 of the attainment measures that the Accounts Commission examined over the last decade. As the cabinet secretary has already said, OECD's PISA study shows that Scotland is narrowing the attainment gap unlike the rest of the United Kingdom. While the Scottish Government is making progress in reducing the attainment gap, it can go only so far in mitigating the damage caused by Westminster's policies. I just quote what Nicola Sturgeon said, that much has changed since 2011, and the latest figures show that there has been a decrease in the number of children living in poverty. George Adam. Yes, the Scottish Government has achieved so much with the limited powers of the devolved settlement, but we have to go further. As the cabinet secretary has already said by 2020, we will have more Scottish children living in poverty because of UK welfare reforms. That is before the next round of cuts due in 2017-18. It is unacceptable that, due to the decisions of the UK Government, children and families in Scotland are suffering. That is why the Scottish Government's submission to the Scottish Smith commission for more power sets out the need for Scotland to have full responsibility over welfare powers. The Scottish Government child poverty strategy expresses its commitment to focus on the need to tackle the long-term drivers of poverty through early intervention, prevention, partnership and holistic services. Full powers over welfare and social policy will allow us to tackle child poverty and allow Scotland to become the fairer country that we all want it to be. Full responsibility over tax and national insurance will help us to create jobs and build a more prosperous Scotland that is necessary to support our ambitions for a fairer society. During the referendum debate, and I said it again yesterday during the Smith commission debate, some of the best debates were on the country that we all wanted Scotland to be when we were out in our communities debating at various hustings. We disagreed on how we got there, but we all more or less wanted the same thing. As I said during that debate, those types of transformational changes that the Scottish electorate voted for in September, so I would ask colleagues in opposition benches to be serious about the Smith commission and to make sure that they take that into account during the commission's deliberations, because we must ensure that this Parliament receives the powers that it needs. The Scottish Government has also legislated for access to education. Access to education should always be based on the ability to learn, not the ability of the size of the wallet of the individual family. The Scottish Government removed tuition fees, saving over 120,000 students studying in Scotland up to £27,000 compared with the cost of studying for a degree in England. Research from the Scottish Parliament information centre found that, since fees rose to £9,000 three years ago, the cost to students in the rest of the UK is £14 billion, and Scottish students studying in Scottish universities has saved a billion. We also have the situation where various universities are now working towards trying to ensure that they have access to at least 20 per cent of people from the poorest backgrounds. I know that UWS and Paisley have actually been hitting access to that figure. I agree that retention of those individuals is the situation. I welcome some of the steps that the Scottish Government has taken, but why does Scotland have the lowest percentage of university entrants from the poorest backgrounds and the lowest proportion of entrants from state schools in the whole of the UK? Mr Macintosh, that is why we have the legislation to ensure that we can attain that and make sure that universities are moved towards getting the figures that we all want. Currently, we find that the Office of National Statistics says that Scotland is the best educated population in Europe and among the best in the world. Surely, that is an example of things that have actually been working for the Scottish Government in with the limited powers. Closing, Presiding Officer, I would say that the answer to this issue is far more complicated than what the Tories are claiming. The Scottish Government has achieved so much in educational attainment, but there is still much to do dealing with poverty and, in particular, child poverty, this Parliament needs the powers to make the type of transformational change that we all want. The challenge to us all is to ensure that the Smith commission delivers the type of powers that can make that change. That is the type of change that Scotland voted for in September. Gordon Brown was claiming the proposals put forward by him and some of his colleagues with the vows federalism were going to be within a year or two as close to a federal state as you can in a country where one nation is 85 per cent of the population. Mr Adam, you have to close now, please. Closing, Presiding Officer, promises and vows are not enough. This Parliament has to deliver. I am afraid that there is no extra time in the debate. Can I reiterate that, Jane Baxter, to be followed by Stuart Stevenson? I am pleased to participate in this debate, which provides the entire chamber with the opportunity to explore issues that have been the focus of much of the work of the Education and Culture Committee over the past few months. What has been clear from the committee's work, particularly considering the impact of the curriculum for excellence and the recent exam results, is that the variation in attainment of pupils across Scotland is still so marked. I welcome the Conservative motion before us, does note that point. Once the motion refers to attainment, the meeting of a standard, I believe that we should also consider the achievement involved in reaching that standard. Those two words are sometimes used interchangeably, but in this context they are not the same thing. In saying that, I am not ignoring the importance of attainment or the role that meeting standards plays in enabling young people to progress in their learning or their employment, but for too many children and young people, achievement or progress towards the standards required means a longer journey than for others. It means overcoming barriers relating to their own or their family's personal, domestic, financial or social circumstances, and it is by supporting those families and their children to overcome those barriers and make that achievement, which will improve the attainment levels. While we deviate across the chamber in our views on how we best close that attainment gap, it is clear that we are united in the need to tackle it, because, as we have heard, the figures are stark. As the social mobility and child poverty commission have highlighted in a recently published state of the nation report, those young people from the poorest areas in Scotland are four times more likely not to be in a positive destination or leaving school than their more advantaged peers. The attainment gap is not just apparent as a child progresses to maturity and on to post-school destinations. The inequalities that exist between children, including language and number skills, which form a huge part of the overall learning journey, start from day one. During the discussions around the children and young people bill, many members will recall that there was a broad and vocal coalition of organisations who urged for greater support and recognition of the developmental importance of the earliest years of a child's life, a fact illustrated by a 13-month and 10-month gap in vocabulary and problem-solving ability between children from the highest and lowest socioeconomic backgrounds. Attainment inequality also persists in effect in the outcomes of children with additional support needs, with hearing impaired pupils being 10 times more likely to leave school with no qualifications than pupils without additional support needs. What is clear is that the gap is also widening. Returning to the work of the committee, the evidence from all the teaching unions during the inquiry into curriculum for excellence was unanimous in presenting the increased burden faced by teachers in delivering the new national qualifications. The EIS found from its own workforce survey that over 80 per cent of respondents found the workload of the new system a cause for severe stress. When teachers are focusing their energy on navigating the system, as well as being able to teach, there is clearly a problem. I do hope and I believe that the cabinet secretary will take on board the challenges that are being faced by pupils, teachers and schools under the new national qualifications. There is broad support for curriculum for excellence, but we must make sure that it is fit for purpose. I have said before and I say it again that it is disappointing if what the figures suggest are true that, still for too many children in Scotland, your life chances will be determined by those circumstances that you are born into and not your potential to achieve, develop and thrive. This Parliament can rightly be proud of some of the steps that it has taken in the past few months to improve the opportunities for care leavers and looked after in vulnerable children, but it is important that we do not stop now. For nearly 80 per cent of looked after young people leave school at 16, with an average attainment nearly four times lower than a non-looked after peers, and there are seven times more likely to have been excluded. Colleys, we are still failing an entire generation. Barnardo's have been keen to highlight the challenges facing those looked after young people who remain in the home environment. Although similar in number to those looked after young people in foster care, for too many looked after children at home, there is not the same level of support. It will be interesting to see whether the public body's rise to the challenge of their new duties under the Children and Young People Act of supporting looked after children and take steps to specifically help to close the attainment gap, which marks the life chances of too many young people. However, schools cannot be expected to effectively tackle the attainment gap on their own. For many pupils, their performance at school is intricately bound up in a web of other challenges, whether at home or in their wider community. For just as many pupils, a quality learning experience and the boost to aspiration and ambition that that can bring is just as likely to take part to take place outside the classroom as inside it. Sport, youth clubs and after-school activities can all have a hugely beneficial effect on a child's outcomes through experiential learning and confidence building, which is why we should look to the impact of health and social care integration, which, although focused on older people, brings with it consequent changes that are emerging in children's services. That, combined with the requirement for a child's plan, offers the potential for everyone involved in meeting a child's emotional and learning needs to work in partnership with the child as the focus. I have made reference to Labour's amendment and reiterate the importance of identifying the barriers to learning facing all children and young people and making sure that the child is at the focus of the support that is available. Stuart Stevenson, to be followed by Liam McArthur. The Conservative motion before us today says that, and I quote, believe in greater diversity in schools. The Collins dictionary defines diversity as the relation between entities when numerically distinct. In other words, there has to be a multiplicity of entities. In my constituency, in the council area of Murray, the future of schools in Fenechti, Port Nocky, Port Essie, Cullen, Rothy, Mai, Crossroads and Cluney School and nearby at Port Gordon and New Mill are all under review, and Mill's high school in Foghibyrs in Morse-Turglach is under threat of closure. The Tory motion also believes in maximum choice. Are schools in Murray with good educational attainment being supported by what is proposed? No, they are threatened by proposals to merge, to close, to reduce the number of schools, reducing diversity, reducing choice, not to deliver maximum choice but quite the opposite, not to deliver greater diversity and reduce numbers. I may come to Mary Scanlon later because I will say things of considerable interest to her. No educational case has been made for the changes that are proposed in Murray. Nor does the economic case stand any scrutiny, because many of those schools are below the 70-pupils level at which additional funding trips in. If the schools that are proposed for closure were to close, it will be a seven-figure sum in funding that Murray council sacrifices. It is not justified in diversity, it is not justified in choice and it is hardly likely to be justified on economic grounds. More fundamentally, there is not a squeak, not a sound, not a word of community wanting this kind of change to be made. How do we know what the community thinks? On Saturday, the communities in Fochibyrs and Moss Toddlach in my colleague Richard Lochhead's constituency were on the march to save their local high school, Milne's high school. An excellent school, as many of the schools that I have referred to are, with good marks, we are not looking at closing failing schools yet, we are looking at schools with good educational records. We had a community energised in defence of its own school, not quite unanimously. The local Conservative councillor, well-known to Mary Scanlon, was not with the team in Fochibyrs and Moss Toddlach. He was not standing shoulder to shoulder with his constituents. He was standing on the touchline at Easter road as an assistant referee between hearts and hips. A very important job, very important that he gives that support in the capacity it does, but on that day of all days, he should have been standing shoulder to shoulder with his constituents. I hope that in future he will do so. Does Mary Scanlon wish to comment? Mary Scanlon. I think that it is inappropriate to talk about a member of my staff who does have a contract with Scottish Football Association, but I would ask Mr Stevenson, as the convener of the Standards Committee, to reflect on his comments. My granddaughter is a pupil at Moss Toddlach school and I want to declare that as an interest. The only proposals to close Milne's are from Caledonia Consulting. I am sure that, as a member of the SNP, the member will be aware that all the councillors in Murray Council will be voting on Monday to determine whether or not that school is up for closure. However, I will say that I am on the same page with the attainment levels. I have a paragraph in my closing speech on Milne's High, and I agree very much with the member on the attainment levels. I think that I am perhaps encouraged by what I have just heard, but equally it sounds as if we may be hearing an attempt to outsource the blame for something that was initiated by the council. However, if on Monday we get the kind of result that the community has been marching for, then I think that that is something that I will make common cause with anyone in any part of this chamber and express gratitude for. Therefore, I am glad to have raised it today to give it that airing in the hope that we may see some progress on behalf of our communities. In the remaining 50 seconds that I have, let me just say a little bit about disadvantage and about from where that comes. Yes, it comes from economic circumstances. It certainly does not come from genetic ones when children are born. I did an event in Aberdeen, I think, in 2009-2010, as a minister, where I saw a film of a one-year-old child beating with music, right from the outside of birth, children are affected by the environment. So having an economic environment where we are denying children the range of opportunities that they would get in more wealthy environments is not a way forward. I ask the Tories to reflect on that. I ask the Tories to consider the effects on next generations of economic policies coming from Westminster, and I am happy to support the cabinet secretary's amendment. Many thanks. Liam McArthur, to be followed by Kevin Stewart. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I, like others, welcome today's debate and thank Liz Smith for bringing it. I listened to the exchanges between herself and the cabinet secretary earlier on. We were observing, we say, the children's analysis and recognising that, while our education system serves the majority of our children, although no room for complacency, it is still failing too many of our poorest children. Neil Bibby's amendment focusing on improved pre-school provisions in the needs particularly of looked after children's are one I wholeheartedly support and need to reflect my own amendment for this debate. The Government's amendment is the usual disappointing mix of self-congratulation mixed with Westminster bashing. There is undoubtedly much to be proud of in terms of what we are doing here in Scotland. Mr Russell highlighted a number of examples of remarkable work being done by staff, pupils and others in schools right across Scotland. In part this reflects the commitment to this issue shown by successive administrations by MSPs across the political spectrum, as well as the work being done directly by those involved in the sector. The risk, however, in the SNP claiming credit for anything positive and blaming everything else on Westminster, is that it absolves Scottish ministers and indeed this Parliament of taking action where action is possible and necessary. This point was made by the Children's Commissioner in evidence to the education committee earlier this week. While reiterating the central importance of child poverty to issues of child attainment, Tam Bailey also made clear that there are things that the Scottish Government could be doing that would make a difference. Targeting resources where they are most needed is perhaps the clearest example, where Scottish ministers have been reluctant to act, preferring instead to blame Westminster for an overall lack of resources, despite being in a position no different from any other part of the UK. Interestingly, this was a point picked up by the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission in their report published earlier this month. While extremely positive about the early years collaborative and the joint working and understanding that that facilitates, the report observed that programmes, quote, do not focus specifically on pupils from disadvantaged households in their project conception design and evaluation. They go on to say that it is particularly worrying that these programmes do not use any data to target effectively. That criticism about a lack of transparent data was interesting. It triumphs with the concern that the education committee in the context of very extensive work that we have carried out since 2011 on attainment and achievement for those going through the care system and, indeed, through a more recent consideration of the Children's Young People's Bill. Yet, time and again, ministers fall back on condemnation of welfare reforms, which would be fair enough perhaps if what the SNP were proposing by way of an alternative were demonstrably different or credible. In truth, they have been neither. After months of SNP ministers and backbenchers railing against the work programme, sanctions and even universal credit, their own welfare reform commission recommended, surprise, surprise, a work programme, sanctions and the principle of universal credit. Meanwhile, their fiscal commission called for matching the trajectory of debt reduction. Changing the names but adhering to the principle of offering no new money is not an alternative vision to make. Let us please have a little bit more honesty here. Let us also make sure that we are doing all that we can within the areas of our own responsibility. One such area, of course, is early learning and childcare. Thanks to the case made by the Scottish Liberal Democrats and a range of children's charities over many months, we have seen the Scottish ministers agree to extend free provision to more of Scotland's two-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds. One could argue that this is in fact a rare example of effective targeting on those most in need, where, for a long time, ministers insisted on focusing on the universal provision being made for three- and four-year-olds. Welcome, though the latter is, it failed to address the benefits of targeting interventions both at children below the age of three and those most in need. I am going to have to carry on, I am sorry Mark. One of the strongest advocates of this approach has been Save the Children. They returned to it in their briefing for this debate. They point out that the learning gap emerges in the early years long before children reach school and becomes difficult if not impossible to close. That is why, though I very much welcome the steps taken in the budget back in January, I would urge ministers to go further and match what is in place for two-year-olds from the most disadvantaged backgrounds south of the border. The evidence shows that, for every pound invested before the age of three, 11 pounds are saved later in life. As well as helping to close the attainment gap, that is a sound investment in the economic and social wellbeing of this country, not a bad way perhaps for the new First Minister to begin her tenure. Save the Children also called for targeted support in school, quoting the targeted initiatives that support pupils living in poverty to catch up quickly if they start school already behind using a range of measures, including one-to-one teaching and parental involvement. That reflects the thinking behind the pupil and premium in place in England. Again, I think that ministers should be reconsidering to make most effective use of the available resources. The challenge that we face in tackling the attainment gap is significant, complex and impossible to do justice in the short time available this afternoon. I am grateful to Liz Smith for enabling this debate to take place. I am proud too, like James Baxter, for the work undertaken by the education committee during this Parliament. The important progress that we have helped to achieve. Further progress is quite clearly needed, and tackling issues of poverty will be key. Evidence suggests that it is not necessarily prerequisite. Save the Children point out that some schools and local authorities are achieving great things for the poorest children in their areas, ensuring that their ability to do well in the classroom is not hindered by growing up in low-income households. There is the basis on which to build ideas to draw on how we target resources and hopefully a continued consensus that will allow us to make progress. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Over my years as an elected member in Aberdeen City Council and since 2011, I have had many opportunities to talk to teachers, parents and pupils on this and many other issues. One of the most interesting conversations that I have ever had was with a teacher who I had known for a very long time, who taught at a school in a disadvantaged community in Aberdeen and spent her final years in a school in a posher suburb in the city. Now, this woman was never backward in coming forward and giving her views, and while she praised many of the initiatives that had taken place, instituted by the Scottish Government or by the council, she was also very critical of some other things that were taking place in society. Some of the things that she said were very interesting indeed. One of the things was that you can reduce class sizes as much as you like in certain areas, but if the kids are coming to school hungry, they are not going to be able to concentrate and they are not going to be able to learn. You can send in as many PSAs, people support assistance into schools if you like, but if those kids are hungry, they are not going to be able to concentrate and they are not going to be able to learn. She, as a teacher, used to take various snacks into school and in the morning would hand out cereal, bars and fruit in the hope that stomachs would be filled and concentration levels would lie. Some would say that that is not a teacher's job, but she sees that as her day and daily work in that school. She then went on to talk about the school that she moved to. Because of demand, class sizes in that school were much, much higher. The level of people support much, much less. Atainment levels are higher. Why? Because those kids went to school with full bellies and with very little worries and beyond that, those schools also had the advantage of parent teacher associations and parent councils that were able to raise large amounts of money for additional things. I think that we have to take cognisance of the folks who are working at the coalface, who have worked in both disadvantaged and advantaged areas. When they are saying to us that a lot of the problems that exist are not about education policy and not even about education resourcing, but about the day-to-day struggle that certain families face in their lives that we have to listen to them. Liz Smith mentioned poverty, but in some regards there is a bit of crocodile tears about that. What we do know is that there will be 100,000 additional children in Scotland who will be forced into poverty because of the policies of the current Tory Liberal Administration at Westminster. I will take Ms Dugdale. I agree very much with much of what Kevin Stewart has said. I wondered whether he has read the Joseph Rennie report on tackling the attainment gap in our schools and whether he agrees with them that he should support targeted funding, actually allocating additional resources to schools and nurseries. As I have said to Ms Dugdale, having been involved at a council level in trying to target resources to disadvantaged areas, that has been helpful in some regards, but the social issues, the issues of poverty, have held kids back. In reality, we can continue to cut class sizes, and I hope that we do. We can continue to put PSA resources into poorer areas, but the realities are that we are not going to help a lot of those children unless we make sure that they are fed properly and that they have the advantages that others do at home. Let me turn to families because a lot of poor families sacrifice a huge amount to try and ensure that their kids do well at school. Others wish that they could sacrifice more, but they cannot, and yet those kids tend to do that a bit better. The key thing in all of that is maximising the amount of income, whether folk are on welfare or whether they are in work—low-paid work—to make sure that they have the ability to feed and to care for their children properly and to give them the advantages that are required. Girfech is a great principle, but one of the things that it does not take into account is the income that is going into a household and how that affects an individual child. On the point of demonisation of individual schools, having been at a school myself, which was demonised, we then saw a huge amount of kids move out of that school, a huge amount of teachers move out of that school to other schools, and then that school basically failing. That school is no longer in existence, and I absolutely hate to see that the Tories get their way in that demonisation and the same thing to happen right across this nation. The motion highlights the need for greater support for pupils with often hugely varied additional support needs. The failure to ensure that support is available cannot be in doubt given, for example, the experience of those pupils who are dyslexic. As convener of the cross-party group on dyslexia, I want to pay tribute to the superb work done by the members who are a diverse and accomplished group with a wealth of experience about dyslexia. Amongst other things, through the efforts of the members in dyslexia Scotland, a dyslexia toolkit has been developed on the definition that it established, which has been approved by the Scottish Government. In almost 10 years since the CPG came into existence and during this time, it is nothing short of a scandal that the same obstacles continue to prevail for those ASN pupils seeking diagnosis and assessment and trying to secure the necessary support. An analysis of those obstacles reveals some common themes, starting with the discrepancies within as well as between local authorities. That has resulted in a school postcode lottery for ASN pupils seeking appropriate support. Furthermore, this situation is unlikely to improve when, as Liz Smith pointed out currently, schools are answerable and accountable to, first and foremost, local government and national government rather than to parents and pupils who are best placed to comment. To the example, I think that it is a main home academy in air that has become a dyslexia friendly school. That is within the existing structure, but it is a pioneered approach that is very important across Scotland. I am sure that the member will accept the increased funding that has gone to dyslexia Scotland and the consideration that is being given to giving every bit of help to that model, so that it does not require to deconstruct Scottish local authorities to change what is taking place. Any dyslexia friendly school is, of course, welcome, but let's look in a little bit more detail about just what is happening with its additional funding, the cabinet secretary comments on. Not surprisingly, the cross-party group continues to hear cases, for example, about parents who have reason to believe that their child is dyslexic, having to fight to convince the school that an assessment is essential. Educational psychologists carry out assessments, but, with ever-increasing demands on those psychologists, it is sadly not uncommon for parents to have to pay for an independent assessment for their child who should have been tested in school. That definitely raises equality issues around parents' ability to pay for those independent assessments and is just one concrete example of an area of educational policy that the Scottish Government could address to mitigate inequality. Instead, the cabinet secretary's nothing-to-do-with-me-gov response to the problem has been to glibly state the self-evident fact that education authorities have a responsibility to have an education psychology service and to prioritise and manage the service in light of local circumstances and priorities. Well, I am sure that that inspired and reassured the many anxious parents and pupils fighting to have those assessments. I hope that, therefore, the cabinet secretary will take on board the findings and recommendations of Education Scotland's independent review, which the Scottish Government commissioned to assess the experience of dyslexic learners and those with additional support needs within primary, secondary and special schools in Scotland. The CPG has welcomed the report's conclusion, which considers, does accurately and depressingly, lists the inconsistencies of policies and practices across and within local authorities. For example, in two schools just a few miles apart, the report found that one had an excellent approach on the response to a potentially dyslexic child, the other a totally inadequate one. More encouragingly, the report states that there has been a significant increase in training about dyslexia at initial teacher training stage. However, it also confirms that a staggering 24 per cent of primary schools in Scotland are not aware of the dyslexia toolkit, which was specifically designed to help teachers and others seeking more information about dyslexia. Unbelievably, some local authorities are still trying to agree a definition of dyslexia despite a definition being agreed by the Scottish Government in January 2009. The report also states that many more pupils are identified as dyslexia in secondary school compared with those identified in primary schools. Consequently, many primary school pupils are being denied early intervention or appropriate support, and this could potentially have a lifelong adverse impact. In fact, the failure to identify dyslexic pupils at any stage of their schooling has been seen to have far-reaching consequences, so it is crucial. The Scottish Government, rather than focusing solely on literacy, must instead recognise and address the wider impact in terms of the health, wellbeing, self-esteem, confidence, ambition and aspirations of those pupils. The Scottish Government continues to assert that it is committed to prevent it to spend. If that really is the case, it must ensure that the early identification assessment and support of young people with additional support needs are sufficiently resourced. Those young people deserve and have a right to expect nothing less. I represent a constituency of contrasts. Using some of the statistics that are available from Aberdeen City Council, I will outline why that is. If we look at school meal entitlement, which very soon will become less of a barometer around areas of deprivation as a result of the very welcome roll-out of free school meals that this Government will be undertaking, we will look at that as an indicator. In Aberdeen City, 15.2 per cent of primary pupils were registered for free school meals in 2013, and 10.5 per cent of secondary pupils. In my constituency, the two top primary schools in the city for free school entitlement are Bramblebury at 65.6 per cent and Manor Park at 46.8 per cent. In my constituency, the two lowest entitlements are Dainston of 1 per cent and Kingswell of 0.2 per cent. In terms of secondary schools, the highest entitlement at Northfield academy is 27.9 per cent, and the lowest entitlement at Old Macor academy is 2 per cent. In my constituency, the council ward with the highest child poverty is 33 per cent, and the bridge of dawn council ward with less than 5 per cent child poverty. I represent a constituency of extremes, and those extremes lead to the challenges that I referred to in my intervention to Liz Smith. In many of those schools, there is fantastic work being done, and I would encourage those members who want to visit schools such as Bramblebury, Manor Park and see the work that is being done there by teachers and by pupils on a day in daily basis to do so. At the same time, there are external forces at work, which those teachers, pupils and families are having to contend with at the same time. We see a trend in Aberdeen that mirrors that nationally and increases in positive destinations for pupils as they leave school, 84.6 per cent in 2007-08 and now 91 per cent in 2012-13. At the same time, those figures are not necessarily mirrored across all schools. We see, for example, Northfield academy positive destinations of 84.4 per cent against the Scottish average of 90 per cent. Given what I have spoken about, the deprivation that is experienced in the Northfield community demonstrates the strong work that is being done there. Obviously, we want to aspire to a situation in which more young people are leaving that school to go to a positive destination. One of the other things that I was interested in until Margaret Mitchell spoke was that the Tory motion mentioned additional support needs, but we did not hear a huge amount about that in the opening remarks from Liz Smith. Margaret Mitchell's comments about dyslexia I was interested by. One of the organisations that I have met recently through my involvement in autism is an organisation called Steps to Inclusion. I am unsure whether Margaret Mitchell has met them, but they are very focused on raising awareness within the teaching profession of autism and dyslexia, what they call the hidden disabilities that can affect pupils' performance at school and raising that awareness. Indeed, I have raised with the minister in the chamber the prospect of areas such as autism and dyslexia featuring much more strongly within the teacher training that takes place to increase that understanding and awareness that Margaret Mitchell spoke about, to ensure that those are issues that were picked up on earlier. I do not think that that is necessarily a controversial aspiration or an aspiration that needs to divide the chamber. Only on Tuesday morning, I visited Falkland house school in Fife. I was invited to visit them as a result of some of the issues that I had raised around autistic spectrum disorder and education and saw, from my first hand, some excellent work being done at that school to really advance the educational attainment of those pupils, many of whom had been referred because a mainstream setting was not working for them. Again, I commend it to those members who have not visited. They say that they are always happy to receive visits from members of the Scottish Parliament. They mentioned some of the members who had visited them previously. I saw a photo on the wall of the cabinet secretary with some of the pupils there. I commend those members who have not yet visited to maybe take that opportunity. They are more than happy to show you around and show you some of the fantastic work that they are doing. At the same time, in my local area, the local council has launched a review on inclusion. That outcome is being awaited. I am meeting the council later this week to discuss the findings of that and to see what the implications will be for future additional support needs education in the city of Aberdeen. Another group that Merritt mentioned is Care Leavers. Many of us will have met with Alex and Ashley in the garden lobby and got our tartan ribbon for the Care Leavers tartan, but the work that the Scottish Government did in partnership with Who Cares Scotland to improve and enhance the rights of children and care and care leavers will play a huge part towards increasing positive destinations. I want to talk a little bit more about inequality, but I see that I am running out of time. The one thing that I found very disappointing is that Liz Smith began this debate in response to the minister by disassociating herself from herself, which was welcomed nonetheless. In her remarks, she spoke about failing schools. I am willing to bet that she could not name a single one because what I see before me is a soundbite that has no substance. Those kind of soundbites without substance are very dangerous because they lead to the stigma that Kevin Stewart spoke about. That stigma can be corrosive to the morale within a school and within a community when they perceive that it is their school that is being singled out by that mention. I would say to the tourists to be very careful about the language that they are bandying about in this chamber and the effect that it has on the side of it. I am grateful to be given the opportunity to speak in today's debate. As a mother of three, all of whom are currently in full-time education, well, I hope they are as I stand here. That is of great interest to me. I believe that the devolution has brought around some positive change to education and early years. The party's approach to education has sought to raise the level of achievement through increased public investment and reduce inequality by providing resources for students from less fortunate backgrounds. In the Parliament's first term, Scottish Labour moved significant reforms in school education. Then it continued its commitment to education by launching a national debate on education in 2002. The debate assessed the future of school education in Scotland and provided an opportunity for policy makers to consider further reforms after those that came before 2002. As a result, there was an agreement to review the school curriculum, end national testing from five to 14-year-olds and increase the emphasis on vocational skills and subject choice for 14 to 16-year-olds. The Scottish Labour's second term in this Parliament saw Education Scotland Act 2004 introduced. We see from those examples that it is the commitment of Scottish Labour to reform and improve education in Scotland since 1999. Since 2007, we have seen a failure to meet targets on childcare provision, class sizes and free school meals, as I mentioned earlier. There has also arguably been a prioritisation of university education at the expense of other areas, demonstrated by the recent cut in college places, which is also dear to my heart, and that has been decreased by 37 per cent, which has deprived 140 potential students the opportunity of further education. Although I understand that Scotland's devolved education system compares reasonably to those in the rest of the UK and that Scotland continues to succeed, we as a party still have a number of concerns. We are concerned at the lack of comprehensive progress, despite the best efforts of schools, teachers and governments. The high levels of inequality still exist across all areas of the Scottish education system. It is unacceptable that children from poor backgrounds do significantly worse at every stage of learning than other children, limiting their potential, future life chances and perpetuating the poverty cycle. The challenge therefore is clear, and the key point remains that for schools to fulfil the needs of society, the change in culture and outlook must go beyond the classroom, as colleagues Kevin Stewart and Kezia Dugdale previously stated. It is clear to me what we need to do to continue improving education in Scotland. We should continue to promote social inclusion in families and communities and aim to provide more high-quality childcare to children across Scotland, something on which the Labour Party and Kezia Dugdale has already outlined its plans. Our commitment to a £45 million investment in childcare places for mothers who wish to take up a college place will aid our most vulnerable and help tackle the high levels of inequality. It is my belief that the Scottish Labour Party has played a key role in reforming education in Scotland. Although that has been diluted now somewhat, it is my hope that, once again, we can ensure a better education system for all in the very near future. It is every elected member's responsibility to ensure that that is our priority, and it is also at our peril if we don't, as our children are our country's future. Many thanks. And I call on Christian Alard to be followed by Ken Macintosh. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, too, would like to start talking about local schools and talking about the demonisation of schools from the Conservatives. Like Stewart Stevenson, who spoke before me, I can't talk about what happened in Aberdynshire, in rural Aberdynshire. There, some years ago, in 2010-2011, there were a couple of schools who were targeted for closure, targeted by the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Council. There's two schools where Logey Coldstone and CLAT, and we managed to, the communities managed to save them, but I can tell you that the month of hurt from the parents, from the pupils, and from the teachers to be demonised month after month, week after week, from the Conservative Party, from the Liberal Democrat, trying to find fault into these schools, trying to claim that the quality of teaching was not good enough. And we heard that again today. Try to claim that the building was not good enough. Try to claim that it was, the problem was the number of pupils. I can say that, that the pupils have grown since CLAT was supposed to be too small, Logey Coldstone was supposed to be too small a clue to survive, has increased by 50% in 2011, and the role increased by 50% again in 2012. So I've learned, President Officer, not to trust the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat coalition when it comes to choices for parents. And today, this miss told us about that to close the Ottoman gap, we should focus on delivering parental choice, greater diversity in schools, and renewed emphasis on improving skills in literacy and numeracy. But she talked about targeting poverty. She said that as well, she will focus the coalition, by coalition, that Westminster, between the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat, will focus on tackling poverty. I'm sorry to say that as we see it in the communities our representatives in the north-east of Scotland, it's not targeting poverty that they do, but it's targeting the poorest in our community. Targeting poverty is not the way to do it in the welfare reform that we have. And I do concur what Kevin Stewart said before me, you know, children going to school with no food is something that shouldn't happen in 2014. Elizabeth said that we didn't like ideas on education. I have to say, we didn't listen to what happened down south with Michael Gove. What happened to Michael Gove? Nobody likes ideas, the Conservative ideas on education. The reality is that what matters is poverty. Presiding officer, let me quote the report from the Joseph Rontry Foundation, closing the attending gap in Scottish education. The report says, who you are in Scotland is far more important than what school you attend. This is the core of the problem, and it's what we should have been talking about today. I could stop there. I could to answer the conservation, because in fact there is nothing to add. It's all about poverty, but it really comes down to the level of poverty that too many of our young people suffer from. The solution to close the attending gap is certainly not to give more choice to parents to select the right type of school in the right type of neighbourhood or to blame our teachers. The solution is for parents to choose a government. We have a track record of closing the attending gap. To show the door to Tory politicians like Michael Gove, let me remind the chamber that increasing parental choice and ending the one-size-fits-all approach were the core of the education reforms of Mr Gove down south. This agenda did not work there, and it won't work here. Presiding officer, who you are in Scotland is far more important than what school you attend. Today, over one in five children lives in poverty, it affected their health, it affects their education, the connection to wider society and the future prospect for work. And yet, we know from the OACD study, the programme for international student assessment called PISA, that Scotland is in fact narrowing the attending gap, while the rest of the UK is not. We know that Scotland is above the average of participants in countries in maths, science and reading. Poverty in Scotland impacts adversively on the attending of too many other young people, like I said before, but the curriculum for excellence and getting it right for every child are policies that are making a difference in our schools, and there is progress across Scotland. But again, Presiding officer, who you are in Scotland is far more important than what school you attend. Reducing child poverty, addressing the inequality gap as a key to close the attending gap in Scottish education. We can only go so far in mitigating the damage caused by decisions taken at Westminster. Children and families in deprived communities in Scotland are suffering, and I should know this. In the rich north east, a lot of pocket of poverty and a lot of families are suffering. There is no question that we need more powers. We need full responsibility of welfare and social policy to tackle child poverty. There should be a price on education, Presiding officer, and I will vote with the cabinet secretary tonight. I thank Liz Smith for bringing forward this afternoon's debate. I cannot tell you how pleased and relieved I am to be discussing a subject that does not mention constitutional change once. In fact, to be discussing a subject that is entirely devolved, and always has been, where if there are any problems, they are at least partly of our own making, and where if there are any solutions, they lie entirely in our own hands. Not only that, I am pleased that the motion asks us to face up to challenges in our schools, not simply those that have dominated recent political debates around early years and tertiary education. There is, of course, much in our school system to be proud of, not least the achievements of our pupils and the high standards maintained by our teachers and staff. There are political achievements too, and even from the advent of the Scottish Parliament, the first incoming Labour-liberal administration, we moved to restore teachers' pay to rebuild the crumbling school estate. Those achievements, among others, have helped to underpin the fundamental public confidence that exists in both the quality and the fairness of our comprehensive system, findings that were borne out by our national debate on education. Having said all that, the Tories are absolutely right to point out that, no matter the undoubted equity of our school system here in Scotland, it does not manage to overcome the inequalities in our society. The OECD findings on Scottish education a few years back still hold true, that despite the best efforts of our best teachers and the fairness of our school system, the most accurate predictor or rather the key determinant in a child's academic success is that child's socio-economic background—a point just made by Christian Allard and several others. To put it another way, a more tabloid report that I heard last month said that the chance of a child going to university is directly related to the number of books to be found in their household. I do not think that we should be surprised by those findings. Even our school-age children spend only a fraction of their lives in school—not just hands, by the way, mine too probably—and they are constantly open to the influence or the obstacles created by family, friends and often unfortunate circumstances, but we are disappointed by them. We are disappointed that this equitable system of ours does not produce more equitable outcomes. Realistic or not, we set the highest expectations of our schools and our teachers. What can we do about it? Having said that, I have a lot of sympathy for the Tory analysis of the problems or the challenges facing our schools, at first glance, the remedy that they propose looks attractive too. After all, who could disagree with increased choice, greater diversity and stronger leadership? Unfortunately, I believe that most of us in this chamber suspect that those words are code. When we hear Ms Smith and Morfaith Conservatives talk about choice, I usually ask myself the choice for whom. Increased choice often only means increased choice for some. Greater diversity, as proposed by the Conservatives certainly in the past, might sometimes be better described as greater division. The strong leadership and full autonomy for head teachers that the Conservatives aspire to is at the expense of accountability to democratically elected local authorities. In other words, having identified the problems of inequality, the solutions proposed by the Conservatives may inadvertently or otherwise it may make matters worse. There is certainly little evidence that people in England shared Michael Gove's desire to heart back to some idealistic vision of the 1950s, which frankly never existed, and every reason to believe that most people in Scotland would be utterly opposed. Do not get me wrong, I do want greater choice and greater parental involvement. We know, in fact, that the more we can involve parents, the better the outcomes for their children. I want to see more choice within the state system, but I recognise the limits of that choice, so I believe in greater plurality. Far more science schools, far more sport schools, far more music schools, far more drama schools, I believe institutions such as Steiner schools could be part of the state system. If I thought it ever existed, I too would reject a one-size-fits-all approach. However, we have to recognise that some parents are better able to take advantage of the choices that already exist. The answer cannot be a consumerist approach. Schools are not a product on a supermarket shelf. They are a taxpayer-funded investment in our children, both as individuals and as part of society. Our belief in equity and fairness means that, where possible, we want the same range of choices to be available to all. I am grateful to member for giving his way. Many universities, colleges and even private organisations have partnerships that they develop with schools. Often what you find is that those tend to take place in some of the more middle-to-upper-class areas, not deprived communities. Perhaps there is a role there for encouraging more links with deprived schools. I am grateful to members for their suggestions, which I believe the Labour Party has already put forward. I hope that I will get time to refer to them, but I would like to. We need to address the attainment gap between schools, but there is an equally big attainment gap within schools, often for the same socioeconomic reasons—the same list of obstacles and challenges that can hold junctures back. I suggest that one of the weaknesses of the Tory approach is that, in creating a studio market between schools, that clearly has nothing to address that. Those challenges were one of the key motivating factors that introduced the curriculum for excellence. It was designed to get away from that overly strong focus on attainment at two early stages in school and put a far greater emphasis on learning, achievement and self-development. I was always a big supporter of the schools for ambition programme. As someone who is the son of two-head teachers, you may be surprised to hear that I have come across great school leaders, both the charismatic and the collegiate. I believe that there should be room in the system for that leadership and that individuality to develop the unique ether of a school community. Most schools now have little or no control over their budget, but this programme gave key schools £100,000 of their own to give them the freedom to do something different, something inspirational. There is more that we can do to remove the barriers to opportunity, which is the point that Marble is bringing up, not just in the classroom but in the extracurricular activities that we offer. My oldest daughter's parent even may say so, Presiding Officer. She had an appropriate official role as a hospital consultant and a lawyer. That should be available to all schools. Thank you, Mr MacDonald. The Conservative motion begins. The greatest challenge facing Scottish education is the existence of the significant pupil attainment gap between different schools and different communities. However, a 2007 report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development indicated that parents' social economic background mattered more for children's attainment than their school. Yesterday at the Education and Culture Committee, we had the opportunity to question Scotland's commissioner for children and young people on his organisation's annual report. On page 8 of the report, it stated that child poverty is the single most negative factor in too many of our children's lives, and the eradication of it is the single most significant influence in the better realisation of their rights. The report also stated that there is persuasive and disturbing evidence of measurable gaps in social, emotional and cognitive development evident in our youngest children. Those are amplified as they grow up. In other words, despite our efforts, remedial actions do not counter the destructive impact on children born into families living in poor conditions. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report of May 2014, closing the attainment gap in Scottish education, stated that children from low-income households in Scotland do significantly worse at school than those from better off homes. One of the authors of that report, Sue Ellis of Strathclyde School of Education, said when the report was issued, that children who grow up in poverty tend to do less well in education because of factors in their home background. For example, having parents who are more stressed and less able to help them with their schoolwork. To meet the needs of such children, schools need to dovetail their systems, curriculum and teaching to bridge between home and school so that children living in poverty experience success in education and can use it to leave themselves out of poverty. I believe that the Scottish Government has the right policies in place in order that pupils from the poorer backgrounds will increasingly find that success in education in order to leave themselves out of poverty. The Scottish Government's Access to Education Fund is specifically aimed at improving the attainment of children growing up in poverty. Schools can apply to the fund to provide support to pupils and their families for school materials, trips, uniforms, IT, coaching and mentoring and parental engagement programmes. The underlying principle being that pupils should not have to miss out because they cannot afford other activities that will enhance their learning. In addition, unlike south of the border, the Scottish Government has maintained education maintenance allowance, supporting young people from the poorest families to remain in education. No thanks. Curriculum for Excellence is about supporting young people to be successful, confident, responsible and effective learners. The Association of Directors of Education in Scotland said about the curriculum for excellence in their paper, raising attainment and improving life chances in Scotland schools. That innovative teaching practice increased collegiate time to discuss standards, increased emphasis on pupil choice and enjoyment and the radical overhaul of the senior face curriculum are strategies likely to improve educational outcomes for young people. That will build on the trend identified by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation when examining attainment at age 16. They found that the proportion of S4 pupils who had not achieved at least five awards had been reduced by 25 per cent over the five years to 2013. They went on to state that the proportion under attaining fell every year between 2008 and 2013, whereas between 2000 and 2007, the numbers remained fairly constant. In training, the number of new modern apprenticeships has increased to over 25,000, 60 per cent higher than 2006-07, with the Scottish Government committed to increasing that figure further in the future to 30,000. If young people choose to move on to further higher education, they will find that it is based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay, saving them the substantial cost of tuition fees. All of that is designed not only to reduce the attainment gap between pupils with different socioeconomic backgrounds but also to have the best educated population in Europe. No thanks. However, we have to recognise that while we are making progress in reducing the attainment gap, we can only go so far in mitigating the damage caused by Westminster policies. The UK Government, by allowing zero air contracts, failed to keep the minimum wage in line with inflation and further cuts in welfare, will result in an additional 50,000 Scottish children living in poverty by 2020. That is before the next round of cuts during 2017-18. If the Tories seriously want to tackle the pupil attainment gap in Scotland, then they should accept the evidence from the experts that poverty is the main barrier to attainment. They should also support the Scottish Government's submission to the Smith commission that holiday should have full responsibility over welfare powers in order that this place can tackle the underlying reason for underachievement, which is poverty. Many thanks. I now call on Murdo Fraser to be followed by John Mason. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Do you think that anybody can have failed to notice that this is a time of great change in Scottish politics? While the media are concentrating on Labour's search for a new leader, let's not forget that the Scottish Government has lost its own First Minister and we have the impending coronation of Nicola Sturgeon as the next incumbent of that mighty office. I must say that it was with some personal disappointment that I heard that Mr Russell had ruled himself out from standing, and he must now be contemplating his own future as a long-standing holder of his current cabinet position, which perhaps explains his rather techie manner and hysterical tone in the debate this afternoon. As Liz Smith pointed out earlier, Mr Russell has always had some interesting views on education, many of which we in the Scottish Conservatives would be warm to in grasping the thistle. He praised the Swedish education system of education vouchers, calling for a debate about their utility in Scotland's shorn of ideological prejudice. He went on to say, choice and diversity are the hallmarks of a mature and confident society, and such a system would ensure the emergence of new types of private provision, which are not seen as exclusive or class ridden. I find it very hard to disagree with those choice and thoughtful words. The reality is that the Scottish education system does well by the great majority of our pupils, but for a minority it is not working, and that is not good enough. We should never be open to looking at models from elsewhere to see how standards might be improved for that minority. Ken Macintosh made a thoughtful contribution. I am not clear whether it was a leadership pitch speech, but perhaps we will find out in the next 36 hours if that is the case. Ken Macintosh said that choice was all very well, but it favoured the better off. In fact, I take completely the opposite view to that. Our current comprehensive school system could hardly have been better devised if we wanted to deprive those from the poorest backgrounds of the best educational outcomes. Those from the better off families will always have choice. They can choose to opt out of the state system altogether and purchase education from the independent sector, or they can choose to purchase a house in the catchment area of a better performing school, such as Jordan Hill in Glasgow, or they can choose, as Neil Bibby pointed out, to purchase private tuition, as many parents do. However, those choices are only available to those who have the necessary means. The ones without the means do not have the choice at the moment. They are the ones trapped with the schools that are not so well regarded, that they are not performing so well, and they are the ones who the current system lets down. I want to concentrate briefly on two aspects this afternoon. First, it is in relation to literacy and numeracy, where the records are simply not as good as they should be. I am not going to read out all the statistics, because I am sure that the minister will be familiar with that, but not enough of our young people, either at primary 7 level or at S2, are meeting acceptable standards in literacy and numeracy, and the situation has deteriorated in numeracy over the past two years from which we have records. I do not think that it is unreasonable to expect that those who are leaving primary school should be able to meet basic standards of literacy and numeracy. Those are vital life skills for young people trying to get on in the world and find employment or future training opportunities. That, so many are failing, is an indictment of our current approach. The second aspect that I want to address is early intervention. We have had many debates in this Parliament over the years on this topic. There is a whole wealth of evidence that says that intervening with the youngest children is the most effective use of resource when it comes to improving life outcomes. However, the Scottish Government's record is patchy. The reality does not match the rhetoric. We have seen a whole range of initiatives from the current Conservative-led Government and Westminster focused on early intervention, so we have the pupil premium. Youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds have additional resources following them through schools. We have seen the extension of nursery places to vulnerable two-year-olds and the introduction of free school meals for those in primaries 1 to 3. When it comes to those issues, the Scottish Government has in each case been left playing catch-up. Yes, there has been some movement on additional nursery places, but lagging behind what has happened south of the border. The introduction of free school meals has only happened here because of the initiative taken by Westminster, with the Scottish Government following suit. None of that represents the relentless focus on early intervention that we need to see. As I said earlier, it is not those from the better off backgrounds with supportive parents who are losing out in the current system. They are always going to do well. It is those from the less well off backgrounds, with the greater challenges that need the support, and the evidence is that they are not getting it from the current system. That is where a more open and diverse education system would assist. We know that the education secretary has no ideological opposition to that because he has written about it in the past. Indeed, we already have some diversity in Scottish education. We have faith schools, Catholic schools and Gallant medium education. Why can't we go further? Why can't we have different types of schools, such as more vocational schools, as they have in Germany, or specialisms in schools, languages, music, arts or physical education, playing to the strength of individual pupils instead of a one-size-fits-all approach? Surely it is time to open up the whole debate about the future of Scottish education, not simply pretend that everything is fine as it currently stands. Surely it is time to recognise above all that those failed most by the current system are those to whom we have the greatest responsibility. Perhaps, Presiding Officer, if the current Cabinet Secretary will not tackle the problem, perhaps his successor will. John Mason, to be followed by Kara Hilton. In preparing for this debate, I thought that it would be useful, as one or two others have done, especially Ken Macintosh, to look at some of the things that were said in the Conservative motion and see if we can work out what they mean. Earlier, it mentioned the pupil attainment gap, and I think that there has been broad agreement through the debate so far that between different schools and different communities, in fact, such gaps exist. As others have said, I wonder whether one of the reasons for that wide gap is the income and wealth in our society. Perhaps our schools are just reflecting the problems in society and, by creating a more equal society, perhaps that would benefit our schools as well. As Murdo Fraser accepts, Richards families can already move to Newton Burns or Jordan Hill and get that kind of choice. Perhaps it is no great surprise that those schools do better. As I had written down before, it has been already mentioned this afternoon the fact that there is extra tutor or tuition support for kids from families who can afford it. I know that voluntary group in Glasgow who tried to give extra tuition struggled to get voluntary tutors. However, it is also worth mentioning the attainment gaps in a particular school. Mark McDonald has mentioned that. I certainly have one secondary in my constituency where the headteacher said to me that it is really like having two separate schools. Such was the gap within the school. The motion goes on to talk about those from deprived backgrounds being less likely to participate in further and higher education. The situation is just a little bit more complicated than that, and I think that there is something a little bit simplistic about some of the Conservative points. For example, we often see girls doing better than boys from similar backgrounds. There can also be considerable peer and family pressure against higher education and further education for youngsters who even do have the ability and do sometimes have the academic qualifications as well. One of the factors in there is widening horizons for some of our young people, and increasing self-confidence is a factor as well. The motion talks about removing the barriers. It has still not been very clear to me having listened to the debate exactly what barriers are meant to be, but there are hints in the following sections what the Conservatives might be looking for. They mention maximum parental choice. I agree that parents have the primary responsibility for their kids' education, and that is why they ultimately have the right to homeschool if they choose to do so. Are we only to increase the choice for the richer families? Murdoff Fraser effectively criticised that as well, but it did not come up as far as I could hear with the suggestion as to how any new system was going to improve the lot of people from poorer backgrounds. Murdoff Fraser mentioned specialisms—we already have that—and different kinds of schools. I am grateful to Mr Mason for giving away. Perhaps for the sake of clarity, I should explain in more detail. My point was that if choice is currently only available to those better off, we need to extend that choice to those who do not have the means. That means having more different types of schools and more accessibility for parents from less well-off backgrounds to access those schools. As others have said, there are a fair variety of schools in Glasgow that benefit from having the urban community. Is one of the families who live in Jordan hill not going to get their kid into Jordan hill and one of the kids from the east end is going to move to Jordan hill? I really fail to see how that improves the schools. I do not see how it improves the school in the east end of Glasgow if it is one of the ones that is struggling. Somebody said that people think that everything is fine. I know nobody who thinks that everything is fine. Liz Smith used the word complacent. I know nobody either in the schools or in here who is complacent about education. Clearly, there are gaps, but the question is how do we improve things? My fear is that, as Ken Macintosh correctly said, he was slightly more generous to the Conservatives than I might be because he said that it might be an advertent, but it is fairly clear that some of the proposals from the Conservatives would make things worse. There is diversity, as has been mentioned. In Glasgow, we have denominational and non-denominational schools, we have Gaelic, we have sports emphasis, we have dance, St Ambrose and Coat Bridge, which I have links with, emphasises music. We have a fair bit of variety out there as well. Our party policy is that, if there is sufficient demand from parents, we will publicly fund a particular kind of school. Broadly, that is what happened with the Gaelic school in Glasgow. I certainly support the party policy in that regard. Equality does not mean that all the schools have to be a uniform grey, but it does mean that they all have to have equally good standards. We see mention of strong leadership and full autonomy for head teachers. I would just say that strong leadership can come at a variety of levels, not just at the individual school level. I think that we can have, and we have had at times strong leadership at a council level in Glasgow, for example, and we can also have strong leadership at a national level. I think that members may not always agree with the cabinet secretary, but I think that they would say that he does give strong leadership. The emphasis on more autonomy for individual schools has been suggested before, and certainly in my area, when that was discussed at parent councils or parent school boards, there was not a lot of enthusiasm for it. Again, I just feel that that would widen the gap, because often amongst parents in my area, there is a lack of confidence that parents often did not have a good experience at secondary school themselves and are therefore wary for taking on more. While I normally criticise Glasgow City Council, I think that a lot of good things happen because schools are running at a council level and resources can be moved around. Thanks very much. I now call on Cara Hilton. Up to six minutes, please. Less would be more. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I apologise to Liz Smith who is not here for missing the start of her speech. I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's debate on educational attainment and the support of Labour's amendment in the name of Neil Bibby. Across the chamber, we all share concerns about the continued gap in attainment levels between children from the richest and the poorest households in Scotland, even if we do not quite agree on the solution. It is a gap that begins early in the preschool years and continues and widens as children start school and throughout their school years. It persists when children leave school and move on into the labour market into college university throughout their lives. It may be 2014, but thousands of children in our communities right across Scotland continue to be caught up in a cycle of disadvantage from which there is little prospect of escape. At least one in five children live in poverty, and that shapes and impacts on every aspect of their life. Here, as Kevin Stewart has already touched on, no child will ever achieve their full potential if they turn up to school with empty belly or if they are living in a damp overcrowded home. I, too, have had conversations with teachers who have told me that they bring in cereal and snacks for kids in the morning, and that is simply not acceptable. When teachers tell me that children are turning up at school hungry or without a warm winter coat, when I hear that children living in poverty are three times as likely to suffer mental health problems, then that makes me extremely angry. I know that my colleagues across the chamber feel the same. However, I have absolutely no doubt that the coalition Government's austerity measures, cuts to tax credits and welfare reforms are all a factor. The gap between the rich and poor in Scotland is deeply entrenched just as it is across the UK, and we need a more radical solution if we are going to address the persistent poverty and inequality that too many of our children are brought up with. Yes, we do have a good education system here in Scotland, and I do not really agree at all with the Conservative motion or many of the speeches, but the fact is that our education system is not doomed well enough for our most vulnerable children in Scotland, and our attainment gap continues to be wider than in similar countries across the world. Our amendment today talks about a greater focus on literacy and numeracy, and, as well as tackling poverty, we need to take different approaches here if we are going to close the gap. According to an EIS report, by the age of three years old, children from deprived backgrounds are already nine months behind the average development and readiness for school. By the age of six, low-achieving children for better-off homes start to outperform those initially higher-achieving children for poorer families. By primary seven, that gap in region attainment levels between pupils in poverty and their better-off peers is 22 per cent. That is a gap that is simply unacceptable, and the fact that it is getting worse is a huge concern and challenge. The gap is starker still when we looked after children. Jane Baxter touched on that earlier. Statistics show that 85 per cent of looked-after children leave school by 16 compared to an average of 30 per cent. Just 2 per cent of looked-after children go to university. A stark contrast, and given the duty of the children and young people's act to support looked after and formally looked after young children, I hope that we are going to see further action from the Scottish Government to address this huge gap in educational outcomes. In Fife, the Labour-led council has embraced a radical approach to closing the gap, based on early and targeted intervention to support those children and families most in need. By intervening early to encourage secure primary attachment between children and their parents through embracing a family-nurture approach that meets the needs of children and families from pre-birth to preschool, by providing extensive parent and support programmes and working especially with young mums and dads to build their skills and develop their confidence and self-esteem, and by ensuring that those families with extra needs can access the right intervention and support services in a non-stigmatised way, receiving as little or as much support as they need, such as help with drug or alcohol issues or domestic abuse. An approach that is based on developing nurture schools, focused on making all our schools as inclusive as possible for all our children and also for parents too that have possibly had a bad experience of education when they have been at school. All working together to ensure that young people for more vulnerable backgrounds are fully supported at all stages of their education. I hope that the nurture school approach will make a real difference in Dumfyrmun and communities across Fife, and I hope that it is a model that local authorities across Scotland will embrace. Important too is the rights respecting agenda, and across Fife, over 100 schools are taking part in this fantastic UNICEF programme. I recently had the pleasure of taking part in a recent session in a school in Dumfyrmun, where the children discussed in impressive detail the UN rights of the child, in particular the right not to go hungry. They planned a campaign to encourage donations to the local food bank. One girl even told me that she knew how important food banks were because her family had had to use the food bank in the past. Fife has also embraced the workshop for literacy approach, and I visited a number of schools in my constituency to see this work in practice. I was extremely impressed to see the number of learning opportunities that can evolve from just one Katie Morag book, bringing learning to life, capturing the imagination of every single child in the class. This is an approach that has been adopted in all five schools, and the evidence already shows that it is raising pupils literacy scores across Fife. It really is working. In conclusion, the Conservative motion today paints a bleak picture of what is happening in our schools and a solution that few of us in Scotland want to see. In Fife, real work is happening to raise attainment for our children and our young people, practical steps that are breaking the cycle of disadvantage for families in Fife. Closing the gap and ensuring that every single child has the opportunity and the support that they need to be the best that they can be. We now move the closing speeches. I call on Kezia Dugdale. Can I start by paying tribute to all the teachers, support staff and educational staff in our schools across the country. Their life's mission is to share knowledge and to ensure that kids have the best possible start in life. They have that public service duty to do what they can to close the educational gap that we are talking about today, going above and beyond the call of duty all the time. I know that from having two parents as teachers. My mum later went into local authority work in an education department and laterally in her career built schools and nurseries. I remember coming home one day being quite upset about the extent of the child poverty challenges in Dundee and she was involved in building a nursery there. The child poverty in this particular part of Dundee was so extreme that it was common. In fact, the majority of kids turned up hungry in the morning, tired and quite often dirty as well. The mission for that nursery school was first and foremost to feed and wash and sleep the kids. Only after could they do that were they in a position to teach those kids to give them the opportunity to learn. She was struggling with the concept of putting fast and powerful washing machines into nurseries as standard because it was on the presumption that the kids would need that facility, what a damning indictment of the state of child poverty in this country. That very story demonstrates how the gap in educational inequality begins. I agree with the SNP that that cannot simply be addressed in the time that a school or a nursery opens and then closes again. The cabinet secretary is right to talk about the damage that the UK Government's welfare policy is causing but we are not powerless to act. We will support the SNP motion tonight and do so in the spirit of critical friendship. Can I turn my eyes to the Conservative motion? I was sorry that we did not hear more from Liz today with regard to the issues of parental choice, greater diversity in schools and strong leadership. That is in part because she had to work so hard to defend her Government's record on child poverty and the damage that her Government does with its welfare agenda. I would like to have heard more about those issues because I would like to have a better understanding of what she means when she raises them. Take, for example, the issue of parental choice. She made a remark with regard to schools around the world that do best at education and emphasise diversity in choice. I disagree with that when you look at the example of Finland. I was in Finland earlier this year and there is no such thing as choice in the education system because all of the schools are at the same standard. There is not a suggestion that you would need to choose because every school has the same merit and the same value. Liz Smith? I thank the member for taking an intervention. Obviously, in Finland there is a completely different ability to tax the population and therefore there is a very high tax level there. Is that something that the Labour Party would support in order to provide that additional service? It is not entirely to do with tax. In fact, I would say that it is everything to do with ethos and the value that it plays on leadership and the role that teachers play in schools. For example, teachers in Finland spend less time in a classroom than anywhere else in the world because they are constantly developing their own skills, sharing knowledge and about how to tackle the problems that we are talking about today. I would say to her that it is not a question of tax and if she would like further evidence of that, I would invite her to go and see what I saw. I know that the cabinet secretary shares a lot of similar views in that regard. On the issue of greater diversity in schools, again, I would have liked to have heard more from the member on that issue because I had imagined that she is talking about free schools and perhaps she has sympathy with Michael Gove's agenda around that. There is nothing nobody on those Labour benches could have any sympathy with that particular agenda, so that is why we are not in a position to support her motion in that regard. I do share sympathy with her on the issue of strong leadership in schools, and I welcome the work that the SNP Government has done on that regard with its College of Leadership. I would be willing to debate whether there is more need for autonomy for head teachers, but let us take the issue of school budgets, for example. Schools are already in charge of their budgets, but the pressures on those budgets right now mean that there is very little flexibility on them to be able to spend in different ways. I would say to her that she only needs to look at Highland Council for example of that today, where they are talking about merging schools, sacking teachers and having to reduce options of the consequences of some of the financial decisions that this Government makes, so that is indeed a very complex picture. I would like to have heard more today about the cost of school, and Anne McTaggart touched on this and used her great sense of humour in so doing, but there is no doubt that 70 per cent of parents say that they have struggled with the cost of school. I was grateful to Gordon MacDonald for raising the issue of the access to education fund, but there are problems with that. If he looks at the detail of the criteria, he says that he will see that it cannot be used to subsidise costs that should be paid for by a local authority. That fund exists to fund new initiatives, not to replace funding, which is being cut by local authorities. He should look at the detail of that. Nevertheless, there is a maximum of 300 schools that could access that fund. That is just 8.5 per cent of all schools because of the nature of the criteria, so it is by far getting to the point of the problem that we face. I would like to have had the opportunity to say more about care leavers, but there is an issue in particular with regard to moving care leavers from one school to another, especially when they are facing exams. Many people that would have met Alex earlier today in the garden lobby would have heard his first-hand experience of that. In closing, I welcome the opportunity to debate educational inequality. It is the first time that we have done that as a chamber since January 2012, and we have discussed golf more regularly than we have discussed this issue. That is something that we should all reflect on. In conclusion, what I have heard today is that the Tories believe that inequality is the fault of the SNP's failing education system, and the SNP blamed the Tories for the inequality because of the welfare cuts. Scottish Labour thinks that they are both right. Mike Russell, up to eight minutes please, cabinet secretary. The debate has been on the whole of a positive debate, and I start by saying that Kezia Dugdale was right to acknowledge the role of those who work in education. I am also a child of two teachers. I am the husband of a head teacher of two schools. I know and have known how hard teachers work, how dedicated they are and how they have aspired for a better society. I have earned my living in less onerous ways, I have to say, including writing, but I am delighted that my works are still being well read. I think that Scottish Tories and Neil Findlay are my most obsessive readers, and I am glad because I still get public lending right, and it is useful for income. I would really look for more intelligent reading than we have heard today, because the Tories are well behind the curve on what has actually happened in Scottish education. Murdoff Fraser has underestimated the extent to which choice and diversity are now established in Scottish education. That is what has developed since devolution, first to Labour's policies between 1999 and 2007, building on a tradition of diversity, intensifying it through curriculum for excellence, while permitting increased diversity in models such as specialist music schools, the denominational sector, the garlic sector and the private sector that, of course, gets public benefits. The Petitions Committee is shortly to examine that matter. The great strength of the Scottish education system is that, increasingly, one size does not fit all. There is a national context, there is a local authority framework and there is local decision making and delivery. Now, could that develop more? Of course it could develop more, but I agree with Ken Macintosh, and I never thought I'd say those words, but I agree with Ken Macintosh if we're going to discuss that, let's do that up front and straight and honestly, and not by the trojan horse of a motion that we've had today. For example, the historic compromises within the system actually arise from the 1918 Education Act and the way in which that has been built on. And there are lots of models that we could look at elsewhere. Vouchers, for example, have been abandoned in Sweden because they were too bureaucratically complex. Free schools have created also many, many problems for the Swedish system, although they're now beginning to create those problems for the English system. Can I just, and I'll let the member in, can I just point out that Scotland now exceeds Sweden in its piece of scores? Liz Smith. I'm interested in the journey that you've taken philosophically from the time that you wrote the book to a situation where you seem to be moving away from the fact that you like the idea then that the money that is available through the state per child could be used for that extra parental choice? Have you changed your mind on that? I cannot see, and I have had the experience of five years as education secretary, and I'm sorry that Murdo Fraser thinks that I am a burnt-out volcano to quote a 19th century English politician. I still feel that I am erupting all over the place, to tell you the place, and I'm happy to go on doing so. I have to say that I don't see how that system could work within what we have inherited in Scotland at this time, but I can see that the diversity has grown and developed. I do want to focus on some of the things that have been said here, but the most important thing that I can do in the time available to me is a bit of myth-busting, because we had quite a lot of myths that we heard this afternoon and we need to remove them or at least correct them on the record. The first of those is that it's absolutely important that Liz Smith understands, Presiding Officer, how Scottish schools work and why we don't have failing schools, because we don't allow schools to fail. Continuous self-evaluation improvement is the ethos of the system, built largely since devolution by successive education ministers. Sam Gobrath, and I pay tribute to him. I think that this is the first education debate that we've had since he died. Jack McConnell, Cathy Jemison, Peter Peacock, Hugh Henry, Fiona Hyslop and myself have all been agreeable to the idea of continuous self-evaluation for schools and a system that, when it intervenes, ensures that correction takes place there and then. When you read inspection reports, you see the report saying that the inspectors will come back at a certain stage. Schools are not abandoned in those circumstances, so schools are not allowed to fail. There's also the myth, I have to say, that school leavers have no place to go, and I'm glad that Liz Smith has corrected the mail on Sunday. I look forward to reading that correction next week. I shall buy the paper just to see if it's there, but the fact is that 81.2 per cent of school leavers from the 20 per cent poorest areas sustained a positive destination. Could we do better? Yes, we could, but it is not true that those from the poorest locations do not have positive destinations. The figures tell you that. I was keen to agree with Neil Bibby about looked after children because I've been strongly engaged in that issue ever since I came into this Parliament, and I don't believe that we did nearly enough, but we also have to say that, if you look at positive destinations, progress is being made. 44 per cent in 2009-10, that was poor, very poor, but it was better than some years earlier. 2012-13, 74 per cent, and we are moving on, but I welcome the support of the chamber to make even more effect there. In the spirit of consensus, I would very much welcome what the cabinet secretary has just said. I wonder if you could comment on that specific issue about giving care leavers a right to remain within a particular school, because that is the collateral damage that very often means that they cannot achieve the results that they need to. I believe that that is an important issue, and I am very open to discussing it. Just as I am very open to the point that Kezia Dugdale made in one of her interventions about targeting resources, we are targeting resources in the two-year-olds policy. We are targeting, insofar as we can, as we expand early years education, but one of the issues about targeting resources that the chamber needs to recognise is that when you have a budget that is under substantial pressure and when you have increasing costs, where do you take money from in order to create new opportunities? That is a discussion that we can have during the budget. I want to make the point to Margaret Mitchell, and it is the only negative point that I am going to make that I think her contribution was inappropriate. The issue of dyslexia is vitally important. She is a chair of the cross-party group. It is really important that that is discussed in the context in which there is an acknowledgement of all the partners taking part in the process. I am afraid that what it became was an argument for radical political change. She is entitled to that as a Tory MSP, but if the member allows me to finish, as the chair of the cross-party group, I would have expected an acknowledgement of the work that is being done by dyslexia Scotland and the Scottish Government and schools to tackle that exceptionally important point. Clearly, the cabinet secretary was not listening to the main point of the speech, which is that these dyslexic children are not getting their assessments, they are not being identified through a lack mainly of educational psychologists. He has washed his hands of that completely. He could do something positive to help any quality that he says that he is so passionate about. She has condemned herself from her own mouth. Instead of taking the position of arguing constructively for change, she is using it to make those political points. That is unacceptable, and it is unacceptable for her as a chair of the cross-party group. Finally, John Mason said quite rightly that there is no room for complacency. I utterly agree that you cannot be complacent if you visit as many schools as I do, because you see in every school diversity of provision, every school with ambition, and I would want to carry this forward with the support of the Opposition. In concluding, I like the phrase that Kezia Dugdale used about critical friendship in supporting educational change. If that is the tone that has been taken, then I am desperate to work with people, but I am determined to make a difference of attainment no matter what. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I am very pleased to close this debate. I would like to thank all those who contributed positively and constructively to the critical issue. I have to say that I was sorry to hear Mike Russell's speech. I had hoped for something more positive. As the Cabinet Secretary for Education, I did think that he was just protesting a little bit too much. I would like to remind him that Tories are always looking for good value for money and looking for a bargain, and given that your book is 50 pence in bargain books, many of us have been picking it up quite recently and reading it avidly. I would also like to thank Mr Russell. When I was appointed as education spokesman earlier this year, he did invite me to his office to talk about education issues, and I welcomed that because although I was a lecturer for 20 years before coming into the Parliament, it was my first role in education. So, whilst I sat below the glowing portrait of Mr Russell, he gave me his time and he gave me advice, which I very much welcomed. He advised me to meet with leading figures in Scottish education, but the main thing that he advised me about, which I have never forgotten, was that one of the main critical issues in education was the attainment gap. The final point that Mr Russell made, Presiding Officer, is that he is very happy to work with other parties to improve the attainment gap. I would like to remind him of page 225 in grasping the thistle. The SNP needs to recognise and give up its outmoded prejudice against talking with the Tories. Here we are. I am always waiting and I am even willing to tolerate and to view that portrait through all these future meetings. I look forward to that. I am always happy to talk with Mary Scanlon. She is the acceptable face of the Tories. Unlike the ones who are sitting immediately behind her. Secondly, I am very happy to gift her this portrait, as she seems so keen on it. Mary Scanlon, it is just that I cannot afford your book at £50 and I have to borrow it from Liz Smith. On the point of this debate today, I welcome the Labour Party, because every single contribution from that party welcomed the debate and acknowledged that more can be done. It focused on the critical early years. Given time constraints, we have not all had time to do that. I think that often we look at primary, secondary, further education and higher education. The more I read in this job that I am doing, the more I appreciate that it is the early years that counts. I commend everyone who mentioned the difference that a good nursery education can make prior to school. While I am talking about this, I think that we should all value the childcare workers in Scotland who now have to be qualified, they have to be registered with the Scottish Social Services Council, they are accountable to the care inspectorate and they do a brilliant job for children prior to going to school. I just say that most of them are on the minimum wage. Never mind the living wage, the minimum wage. While we talk about teachers, can we maybe just not forget the excellent job that they all do? Jane Baxter on looked after children and McTaggart and Ken Macintosh. I know that he was cut off at extracurricular activities, but it is identified as being one of the many issues that can help opportunities for future. Despite our different political ideologies, I thank the Labour Party for acknowledging the challenges that we face. Liam McArthur is very measured and considered and again on the early years and for each pound invested before the age of three, it can save 11 pounds later in life. Margaret Mitchell on dyslexia and for her commitment to chairing the cross-party group on dyslexia over many, many years. I actually thought that Mark McDonald made some very good points also on additional support needs and I hope that that has not been detrimental to any ministerial prospects in the pending reshuffle that may be coming his way. Stuart Stevenson, to Stuart I would say, perhaps he should check how many of the SNP Murray councillors were on the education steering group who were responsible for the review of the school estate in Murray prior to speaking in this Parliament. When it comes to local authorities looking at the school estate, perhaps we have more in common, Mr Stevenson, than you realise. I agree with you that it is not enough just to focus on pupil numbers, particularly in rural areas. A good example of that is Millins High School in Falkibyrs, which was recommended for closure by consultants, but those consultants failed to pay any attention to the school's excellent entertainment levels, which compared very favourably, as the member said, with other schools in Murray and virtual comparators across Scotland. I would also like to commend the excellent work done by teachers and support staff across Scotland for their commitment and dedication to pupils from all backgrounds every day of the week. The one thing that I notice, particularly in the recent referendum debate, is the political knowledge that I certainly did not know at school. It is the knowledge of the environment and it is also the knowledge and confidence that young children have in a partnership with teachers that was probably not there many years ago. As Liz Smith said, in S4 fewer than 20 per cent of most disadvantaged pupils attain five standard grade passes, while 60 per cent of the more affluent peers do. That is neither fair nor is it sustainable. It cannot be the case that a child's postcode determines their educational attainment. I think that that is something that we can all agree on. We may disagree on the solutions and on a way forward, but I am also very pleased that under the convenership of Stuart Maxwell, the education committee is to spend time and energy looking at commitment. That is an opportunity across the chamber for all parties to look at the issue that we have been looking at today. However, good attainment at schools is not only directly linked to the opportunities available to young people when they leave school, but to the well-being and the quality of life in the future. As others have said, there has been an increase in the number of school leavers entering positive destinations. Remaining those in the last few years is very very welcome. The increase in those entering employment, which was a positive destination, has also increased in the last two years. I would say that is in no small part due to the UK's policy in the strong recovery from the recession. The UK has had the biggest growth of employment within the G7. The Scottish economy grew by almost 1 per cent. Unemployment has increased from 73 to 73.9 in the second quarter of this year, and young people's unemployment is now at a six-year low. The link between a strong economy and providing opportunities cannot be disputed. One of the main things that we should look at today is that children in work-less households in Scotland have fallen again and are now lower than the rest of the United Kingdom—in fact, down 38,000 in the past year. Given that I have one minute left, I will just move over. I just wanted to say something consensual to finish today, although I appreciate that there has been a fair degree of consensus over this issue from some people. The one issue that we can all agree with is Ian Wood's commission for developing Scotland's young workforce. I think that it is possibly the most exciting initiative in training and education that I have seen in decades. The focus on preparation for work in schools, the option for vocational education, the reduction of snobbery by everyone has to go to university and respecting people for whatever job they do is absolutely first class. We all recognise the brilliant work that is done by teachers in school and childcare staff. I hope that we can all agree that every child in Scotland deserves an equal chance in life and that improvements can be made in reducing the attainment gap, if we all work together not only on the education committee but across this chamber. Thank you. That concludes the debate on addressing the attainment gap in the Scottish schools. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 11318, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, or on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request-to-speak button now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 11318. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 11318, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of five parliamentary bureau motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 11334 on amendment to the name, remit and duration of a committee, and motion number 11319, 11320, 11322 and 11323 on approval of SNSI's on block. The question is on these motions, we have put decision time to which we now come. There are five questions to be put as a result of today's business. Can I remind members that, in relation to today's debate, if the amendment in the name of Michael Russell is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Neil Bibby falls? The question then is amendment number 11304.3, in the name of Michael Russell, which seeks to amend motion number 11304, in the name of Liz Smith, on addressing the attainment gap in Scottish schools, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 11304.3, in the name of Michael Russell, is as follows. Yes, 94, no, 18. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to and the amendment in the name of Neil Bibby falls. The next question is on motion number 11304, in the name of Liz Smith, as amended, on addressing the attainment gap in Scottish schools, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 11304, in the name of Liz Smith, as amended, is as follows. Yes, 94, no, 18. There were no abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed to. The next question is on motion number 11304, in the name of Jofix-Patrick, on amendments to the name, remit and duration of a committee, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is agreed. The motion is therefore agreed to. I propose to ask a single question on motion numbers 11319, 11320, 11322 and 11323 on approval of SSIs. If any member objects to a single question being put, please say so now. Nobody objects. The next question is on motion number 11319, 11320, 11322 and 11323, in the name of Jofix-Patrick, on approval of SSIs, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motions are therefore agreed to. That ends decision time. Can I just remind members that the reception for Poppy Scotland is in the main hall at 6 o'clock this evening? We now move to members' business. Members who are leaving the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.