 Byddwch ar gyfer unrhywoswyl tanfodd ar y cysylltion 676 yn fawr John Swinney ddiolch gynghoroedd yn niwnol. Felly, rydw i ddim yn domb i'n argyrchu'n cysylltion wrth inghiddiadau. Yn rhan o'r pethau i gyd, ddim yn ei ddim yn ddim yn aml. W sír, ydych chi ddim i ddiwedd ar gyfer unrhywoswyl ar gyfer unrhywoswyl a dweud o bwrdd cyffredinol. Mae eu cael ein gwirionedd dweud y sebyd o ddyn nhw mewn cyfydlingol, a'r ddyntidaeth gafdd ar-meddledd yn eu llei i gyffredinol'n dref. Ond os ydych chi'n edrych gyda'r eich gweld y brydion oherwydd, a'r dyfiadau o gyr Ein Giwgol wedi ei ddeifewr yn ddiddordeb unrhyw gilydd a'u gwirionedd a'u gweld i'r bwrdd cyffredinol, i ddydw i'r gwyfriddur, i ddrwyngol gweld i'r ndegyndio'r gwybaith, and parents, children and young people. The Scottish Government is fully committed to doing so as we take forward this work. One element of that approach is to address the concerns that are expressed by the Education and Skills Committee about a lack of clarity about the process of making policy and education and taking forward its implementation. Our review confirms that the formulation of education policy will be the responsibility of the Scottish Government, but I want to establish clearer structures within which implementation of that policy is taken forward. I intend to replace a number of groups and committees with a Scottish Educational Council that brings together representatives of the Scottish Government, local government, agencies, professional associations and other relevant bodies to create a cohesive approach to developing Scottish education. We recognise also that we do not command a parliamentary majority and I am keen to engage constructively with members of Parliament across the political spectrum to reach consensus on the way forward for education. That debate marks an important starting point in those discussions. There are many strengths in Scottish education and it is important that those are recognised as we consider further reforms. Many children and young people fulfil their potential. Exam results are very good and improving, and the overwhelming majority of young people leave school to go into a job, training or to continue their studies. We have excellent teachers who are hard working and committed to raising attainment for all, but we still face significant challenges as an education system. There is still too much bureaucracy generating unnecessary workload for our teachers, something that we are actively tackling to ensure that teachers are literally free to teach. Our PISA and SSLN results highlight that performance has declined on a number of measures. No matter what data we use or which aspect of attainment we look at, there is a clear gap between children from more and less deprived backgrounds. As Education Scotland noted earlier this year, the quality of education children and young people experience within and across sectors is still too variable. We must address those challenges and we believe that ambitious system-wide reforms are needed to do that, underpinned by a strong educational rationale. At the heart of our reforms is a simple, powerful premise. The best decisions about a child's education are taken by the people who know that child best—their teachers, head teachers, parents and the young people themselves. We want to put the power to change lives into the hands of those with the expertise and the insight to target interventions at the greatest need. Those who deliver education in our schools are best placed to deliver that approach. To do that, we will empower schools and give them control over what happens in their classrooms. Schools will have a range of new powers, guaranteed in a statutory charter for head teachers. Head teachers will be able to choose their school staff and how those staff are managed. Schools will have control over curriculum content and approaches to learning and teaching within a broad national framework, because they will know what will work best for the children in their care. Schools will also have greater control over their finances, and we have launched a consultation on our proposals for fair funding across the education system. The consultation will run until 13 October, and I encourage everyone to respond with their views to the consultation exercise. International evidence shows that involving parents, families and communities fully in schools improves attainment, so that is exactly what is at the heart of the Government's policy agenda. We will enhance parent councils and modernise and strengthen the legislation on parental involvement to enable all parents to play a role in their local school and in their child's learning. Significantly, the contribution to the process by the work undertaken by the National Parent Forum for Scotland in reviewing the existing statute in this respect will substantially inform the agenda that the Government takes forward. To ensure that schools interact more effectively with families who find it difficult to engage, we will take steps to ensure that every school will have access to a home-to-school worker to make and maintain such links that are proven to demonstrate as a strong contribution to closing the attainment gap by effectively engaging young people and their families in their education. Children and young people are at the heart of our education system and will strengthen their voice through more effective and consistent pupil participation. If schools are to lead and to be put centrally into the position of leadership, they must be supported to do so by other players within the education system. All other parts of the education system must share a collective responsibility for supporting school improvement and we must work together to provide that in an effective way for our schools. The Government's reform agenda envisages a new support structure, which will be made up of three key pillars. Enhance career and development opportunities for teachers, improvement services that are delivered by new regional collaboratives and support services from local authorities. The first pillar is crucial to ensuring that our teachers are strongly supported throughout their careers. Teachers should have the opportunities to develop their careers in a number of different ways, whether in the classroom, in specific curriculum areas or in leadership roles. The opportunities have narrowed far too much in recent years. Professional learning and development is key to that and an area that we will strengthen. We will streamline and enhance professional learning so that there is a coherent learning offer available to all teachers in Scotland. Alex Rowley, I am grateful for giving way. When I speak to teachers in my constituency, they talk about the cuts that are taking place, the workloads where they are completely run off their feet, the class sizes being far too large and the need for teaching assistance. They talk about not having the basic materials to be able to provide teaching and learning to the quality that we need to. How are those reforms going to address those issues that seem to me to be a chronic shortage of funding and education in Scotland? Mr Rowley would have noticed the data yesterday, which indicated that there had been an increase in educational expenditure by local authorities, which puts more money into the schools that he has talked about. If Mr Gray would forgive me, I will answer Mr Rowley's point first. Mr Rowley will also be aware of the contribution of pupil equity funding, which is going into many schools in Mr Rowley's area that he represents. That assists schools in determining what interventions they can support that can help them to tackle the issues of attainment. Finally, in response to Mr Rowley on the question of workload, the chamber will be familiar with the efforts that I am taking to address the issues of workload within the teaching profession. I do not consider that to be completed business. There is work that still has to be done, not just by me but by other parties within the education system, including local authorities. I obviously encourage local authorities to take forward those steps. I will give way to Mr Gray, if he wishes to— Mr Gray. I want to ask Mr Swinney that he referred to the figures that came out yesterday to ask whether he accepts that the cash increase that was demonstrated once the deflator is applied to show real-terms decrease in funding. Mr Gray will be familiar with the wider public finance position with which the Scottish Government wrestles. I remind him of the Audit Scotland report, which indicated that the support for local government in Scotland had been essentially on a par with the funds available to the Scottish Government as a consequence of the restrictions in public expenditure. On the core agenda of ensuring that enhanced career and development opportunities are available for teachers, we will also work with the profession to design new career pathways to develop leadership skills, pedagogic expertise and curriculum area specialities. We will also look at issues in connection with initial teacher education, where we need to ensure that new teachers are emerging from initial teacher education with consistently well-developed skills to teach in key areas, and that must include the core curricular areas, as specified in curriculum for excellence, of literacy, numeracy and health and wellbeing. The second pillar of support will ensure that capacity in our schools is built and strengthened across Scotland. Regional improvement collaboratives will provide dedicated educational improvement through experienced and talented educators involving but not limited to schools, teachers, local authorities and Education Scotland. Pulling and strengthening Scotland's education improvement resources in this way will reduce inconsistencies and address a significant lack of capacity that exists in some parts of the country at the present time. The educational rationale for this is strong—teams of professionals with different specialist skills in different curricular areas working together around the needs of schools. Improving the lack of curriculum area support has rightly been welcomed by many in the teaching profession, including the Educational Institute of Scotland. Specials can give tailored advice on how their curriculum area can contribute to closing the attainment gap in literacy and numeracy. They can work with teachers to give advice on how to apply educational strategies and improvements to the content of their curriculum area. The void that exists between issuing guidance and materials from a national or a local level and how to implement that in the classroom will now be filled by this approach. That is central to our mission to strengthen the middle and Scottish education and to deliver in full on one of the key recommendations of the OECD review. We will work with partners to ensure that the experience of current and emerging partnership working informs the detailed establishment of regional improvement collaboratives and will empower schools and communities to shape the regional offer to meet their improvement needs. The amendment that the Parliament has before it today from Tavish Scott opposes top-down regional collaboration and the shifting of further control towards Scottish ministers. I agree with those sentiments. The agenda of regional collaboratives will be set by the schools within the area. Schools will set out their needs for improvement and the collaborative will work together to deliver those priorities. That fundamentally shifts how support is provided in the system. I am keen to build on the collaboration that has already emerged between local authorities in the Northern Alliance, which is enhancing educational practice. That is the fundamental driver of our reforms, so I reassure Parliament that there will be no top-down approach and no shift of control to Scottish ministers. Ross Greer. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking intervention. He mentioned how he would like to see more collaboration. In the consultation document that the Government acknowledges, the response from teachers was that they would like to see more collaboration, but the barrier to it is funding cuts. Would the Government like to respond to that? That it is funding cuts that are the barrier to further collaboration, not educational structures. Cabinet secretary? At the heart of the OECD review, there was a concern about the lack of collaboration within our education system. What I am doing here is putting in place the mechanisms to enable that collaboration to happen and to happen at an educational level so that practice is enhanced. By that measure, we will take the steps to strengthen the delivery of education services in Scotland. The third and final pillar of support will be provided exclusively by local authorities. The services that local government provides to schools are and will continue to be invaluable. Councils continue to have a crucial role to play with responsibility for a wide range of education services, retaining local accountability and ensuring that their schools have the support framework and services that they need to thrive. However, we must also improve the consistency and the quality of improvement and educational support that is offered to schools across the country. That will mean some change to the current responsibilities of local government, but that is through the medium of collaboration with other local authorities in the system. We believe that this is an opportunity for councils to work with partners in schools and across the country to deliver a consistently improving education support service for our schools. It will also have a crucial role to play in the regional collaboratives that are put in place. Are those three pillars of support taken together alongside a system that is led by teachers, parents and communities will provide the necessary focus towards closing the poverty-related attainment gap and transforming the lives of children and young people? It is an agenda that sits alongside the other reforms, particularly in relation to pupil equity funding that the Government has already set out that significantly enables schools to be able to address the circumstances and the challenges that young people face in their own localities and with a particular focus on closing the poverty-related attainment gap. Reform will require collective effort across the system, and I am determined on the Government's behalf to work with others to put in place a strong system to ensure that we have the necessary reforms undertaken, to ensure that we make Scottish education world-class and that we can deliver the fulfilment that every young person and every child in Scotland has the right to deserve. I move the motion in mind. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I make it very clear at the start that we will be supporting the motion in the name of John Swinney for the very simple reason that it adopts the line of argument that the Scottish Conservatives have long held about why the status quo within school governance is no longer the credible option. May I also make it very clear that we do not believe that reforms proposed go far enough to make good what is wrong in Scottish schools, which is why I have pleasure in moving the amendment in my own name. Despite the reluctance within some ranks of the educational establishment, John Swinney knows only too well that change is now essential. That is because the evidence is incontrovertible. The persistent and long-term problems in literacy and numeracy for far too many of our young people, the fundamental weaknesses in the delivery of the curriculum for excellence and too few teachers to serve the best interests of our young people felt most acutely in some subject areas and by those who have additional support needs are the three main areas of concern. Two of those are systemic, which is why no one can possibly argue that all is well in Scottish education. Before we get told that this is the fault of negative media coverage, let's just examine the facts and let's go back to the point that the cabinet secretary said about the OECD. It's very comprehensive review of Scottish schools, because it liked many of the attitudes and the general ethos of Scottish schools, but it also said that we were very far removed from being able to deliver on our potential. We know all about the piece of scores, we know all about the literacy and numeracy problems, we know all about the fact that Scotland's poorer children are two to three years behind children from more affluent backgrounds, we know all about too few teachers and some of the difficulties of encouraging people to come in to teacher training and we also know about the delivery problem within the curriculum for excellence. That is precisely why the review of governance is so important. It is because it offers the opportunity to change where real power lies when it comes to decision making. For far too long, there have been too many obstacles in the way of teachers who want to get on with the job that they are trained to do and for heads who want more autonomy as a means to deliver much better results for their schools. On too many occasions, they have felt trapped in a myriad of directives, some from national government, some from local government, some from the education agencies and not always with the same message. Those have prevented headteachers from having freedom to take the decisions in their own school, they have constrained choice and diversity and they have led to a culture of conformity, all of which—yes, I will in just a minute—all of which, I believe, have been a large part of what has gone wrong. The principle of equity to which we all aspire is not the same thing and it shouldn't be interpreted as the same thing as uniformity of provision. John Mason. I thank the member for giving way. Would she accept that some schools, especially in deprived areas, benefit greatly from the support that they get from the centre, like from Glasgow City Council education department? Absolutely, but let me come to the point. I will deal with this specifically when I mentioned the pupil equity funding, because I think that there are real issues about where that power of the initial decision making is. As the cabinet secretary said, the international evidence is very interesting. It is true about the buy-in of parents and communities, and I think that that is very important. But if we also look at the international evidence, when there is wholesale autonomy for schools, then there is generally a good set of results. What matters for us is what works in terms of delivering higher standards, not being bound by a one-size-fits-all approach that allows no room for headteachers to demonstrate imagination and creativity or to pursue the different approaches according to the specific educational interests of their own pupils. Scotland's schools cannot thrive on what is a lowest common denominator. We need a system that delivers excellence because it inspires teachers, parents and young people. Let me give you one example of where I think that this new governance structure could be very helpful. Schools now have the benefit of being able to access the pupil equity fund, a very important reform that we fully support, but the key test is about who has the final say as to how it is spent. Does it stand at present? It looks like schools will have to work within both national and local government guidelines, and that is just a little bit different from the support mechanism that can go with it. It will have more freedom, as I understand it, to make suggestions about how to spend that money, but it will not necessarily be in full command of the final decision. The Scottish Conservatives believe that it should be, otherwise the push for greater autonomy will mean nothing. If local and national government can still call some of the shots, headteachers will still face some of the constraints that we believe have caused some of the present system to have difficulties. Of course. I am very interested in the line of argument that Liz Smith is pursuing about pupil equity funding. From my perspective, there is guidance available about how to deploy pupil equity funding, but the whole purpose of pupil equity funding is to enable schools to take those decisions for themselves. Liz Smith is experiencing practice that is contrary to that. I would be grateful if she would draw that to my attention, because that is not the policy intention of pupil equity funding. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has raised that point, because I would like to think that that is true. However, in terms of the paper that was written by Frank Lennon about the guidelines that were issued in March of this year, local authorities and national government could take a slightly different interpretation. That is one of the arguments that we are very strong about when it comes to that full autonomy. It is a very interesting point, because I do not actually think that that addresses the issue that I am raising. What I am saying to Liz Smith is that my policy intention is clear that, yes, there is guidance available to help an informed decision making, which I think is welcomed by headteachers, but the policy intention is to enable headteachers to take those decisions in consultation with the school community in relation to the children in that school. I am inviting Liz Smith if she has evidence to the contrary to draw that to my attention, because my policy intention is clear here. I think that the policy intention is clear, cabinet secretary, but I am not sure in terms of the delivery. Certainly, if you look at what the educational establishment has said in relation to some of the government reforms, they seem very uncertain about how that delivery might be in practice. I also think that when it comes to the cabinet secretary's decision to rule out greater diversity of schools, he faces a major issue, because, after almost two years of keeping them waiting, he has told the parents of St Joseph's School, the Al Calam School, the Glasgow Steiner School, the Mirren Park School and the Green Stem School in Mary Cooter and various philanthropists that, yes, he is interested in their ideas, but no, he is actually not going to move on that radical agenda. The irony here, cabinet secretary, is that it is turning a blind eye to the evidence about what works. Take Newlands Junior College, for example, a radical departure from the status quo and an institution that is delivering top-class results and inspiring others to follow suit, so why can't that principle be extended elsewhere? Many times in this Parliament, the Scottish Conservatives have been accused of being ideologically driven when it has come to education, but at every turn I would argue that what has driven us is what works. Indeed, I would suggest that the very negative reaction to some of the proposed Scottish Government reforms in some sections of the educational establishment is more ideologically driven than anything that we have ever proposed. We completely reject the assertion that weaker educational performance in Scottish schools is something that is to do with money and resources. It has an impact, but that is not the whole story. Let me also deal very quickly with other inconsistencies in the Scottish Government proposals. That is about the regional collaboration, and I know that my colleagues will come back to that. As I understand it, those proposals are supposed to be a body of professional advice and support. I accept that point. What I do not accept is that the way in which it is being presented—certainly the way that it has been interpreted—is that there will be some area of bureaucratic input from those regional boards. In education Scotland, I would have thought that it is the job of education Scotland if it is properly organised to provide that support. After all, we have spent many months in the education committee looking at the role of Scotland's agencies, and education Scotland has been found to be wanting on some of that professional support. Let me finish. I come to the Liberal amendment on education Scotland. I was absolutely astonished given the evidence that we had taken at committee when I read that the cabinet secretary intends to allow the inspectorate to remain part of the same body that undertakes curriculum development. His reason for doing so is because he says that inspection is part and parcel of evaluation and improvement. It is, but surely that must be done on an independent basis. Presiding Officer, there has not been any doubt in the minds of the Scottish Conservatives that Scotland's schools are being held back. Not by teachers, not by parents, not by pupils, but by the system, a system for which the evidence does not make very happy reading just now, and a system that is far too rigid and too doctrinaire on the principle of one-size-fits-all. As the cabinet secretary has said, it is time to change it, but in a way that is much more radical than what is being proposed by the SNP. The members are being very generous in giving and taking interventions, but I am also conscious that we are quite pressed for time, just as long as members are aware. I call Ian Gray to speak to remove the amendment in his name. Before I tempt the cabinet secretary to, as usual, tired and tedious tirade about us never supporting anything he does and I will, let me establish some common ground. Mr Swinney has made plain that in our schools the status quo is not an option and that change must come and he is right, because with 4,000 fewer teachers, 1,000 fewer support staff, 700 unfilled vacancies, attainment and literacy and numeracy and science, declining, with fewer school leavers going on to a positive destination, and teachers about to ballot for industrial action, something does have to change. However, it is not the case that any change will do. The imperative is not reform for reform's sake, but the right reforms for our future's sake. Some of the reforms in this document are welcome. We have always supported the pupil equity fund, after all it is indistinguishable from the fair start funding that we proposed a year ago in our manifesto, managed and delivered properly. It has the potential to be transformational. We also proposed a new improved charter teacher scheme in that manifesto a year ago, so a new career progression for classroom teachers is, I think, a very good thing too. The idea of home link workers seems to us to be a good one, although I hope that the formulation access to does not mean that there will not be enough of them to go round and make the difference that they could. However, the main thrust of the Government's reforms is the structural reorganisation of how schools are run. That has been characterised by COSLA as a power grab, by the times ed as the great governance guido, by Keir Bloomer as authoritarian, unwanted, hierarchical and bureaucratic with dysfunction built in. The cabinet secretary has not taken this lying down, and he rushed to his plans to defend scatter-bombing op-eds across Saturday's papers with positively stuck-anivite diligence. My favourite passage was this one. We need to work with everyone involved in Scottish education and we will continue to listen to what they have to say every step of the way. Presiding officer, I choked on my cornflakes. Is that ironic or is it just taking the mickey? Everyone involved in education has told the cabinet secretary that he is barking up their own tree in 20 years in politics. James Dornan I was chairing a conference last week where Keir Bloomer made the comments that you have mentioned earlier on. I just said that he supported the direction that the Scottish Government was moving forward, and he thought that the next steps was a good proposal. Quotes I make are quotes from what he said at the conference, but it is true that Keir Bloomer is a friend of much of the direction that the cabinet secretary has taken. I think that that tells you how seriously there must be something wrong with the elements of the proposals that he was talking about. We do not need to stick with Keir Bloomer, because we have the consultation response. In 20 years in politics, I have never seen a consultation response so clear, so consistent and so damning of a proposal. Wide-spread support for current governance, apprehension towards further change within the system, no need to fix something not broken, strong opposition to the uniform establishment of educational regions, and the key point, specifically respondents, thought that budget cuts and staffing issues were the two key barriers to improvement. That is the Government's own summary of the consultation. Parents, teachers, headteachers, councils, educationalists are all united in saying that the change that we need is more resource, more teachers and less bureaucracy, all saying that structural change is not the solution. What we get is structural change, a new level of bureaucracy, regional directors, system leaders, cluster leaders, increased workload, increased responsibility for headteachers and not a penny more. Recruiting headteachers is already a problem. Mr Gray gave a welcome to the purpose of regional collaboratives to provide increased educational development resources. Has he changed his position from that? Ian Gray. Let me come to that, because it is an important point. Recruiting headteachers and teachers is already a problem. Teachers already have lower salaries, more class time and bigger classes than the rest of Europe. They are planning strike action already without facing new responsibilities, and yet those changes are uncosted and unfunded. Worse, the new regional bureaucracy threatens to suck resources towards the centre. I have said that cross-counsel collaboration towards something like the old regional advisory services could support teachers' teach. I have heard what the cabinet secretary has said, but I have read his document. The closer you look at the structures, the less they look like autonomy and pedagogical support, and the more they look like control and centralised command. We are to have an overarching education council chaired by the cabinet secretary, regional directors appointed by the cabinet secretary, responsible for preparing and delivering regional plans, and answerable to the chief executive of Education Scotland, who is accountable to the cabinet secretary. All that is backed by a Sophie's choice of two funding models, of which neither will strip out local democratic control of school budgets. That, driven by a beefed-up education Scotland, as Liz Smith said, the one bit of the system that the consultation said should absolutely be reformed. That does not look like a system designed by someone who trusts teachers to teach, but rather by an education secretary who seeks to run our schools from his office in St Andrew's house. It is not listening to parents and teachers, it is defying them. That is not strengthening the middle, as the OECD suggested. It is strengthening central control, increasing the pressure and burden on schools and the head teachers, and gutting the middle at local authorities, which should support them. The document quotes Dylan Williams. The only thing that really matters is the quality of the teacher, but there is nothing here about the real change that is needed. An end to cuts, enough teachers with enough time and enough support, yes, to be the best teachers in the world. That will not be delivered by an education council in Edinburgh. It will not be delivered by regional enforcers of government policy, and it will not be delivered by those next steps. Come on in, secretary. Take a lesson from the First Minister yesterday. It is time for another policy reset. It is time to really listen to parents, teachers and educators, not just say that you are listening. Try again, do better and move the amendment in my name. Thank you. I call Ross Greer to speak to move amendment 6376.3. If the Scottish Government is serious about closing the multiple attainment gaps, ending inequality and raising standards in education, it needs to listen to teachers, pupils, parents and others with the knowledge and experience of what works and what does not. The education governance review so far has been an exercise in collecting the thoughts, observations and ideas of all those with a stake in Scottish education before roundly ignoring them in pursuit of a significant change that was not asked for is quite clearly opposed and for which there is no evidence that the quality of education will actually improve as a result. The Government motion today even calls on them to engage with all parties and stakeholders, including parents and young people, in continuing to develop those plans. Those who responded to the first consultation will be left wondering why they should bother. We should not forget that some reported that they felt unable to respond to the consultation in the format that it was presented in. The next steps report on education reform charges ahead with Scottish Government proposals for widespread governance reform against the express wishes of teachers, parents and educationalists. The Government's summary of responses acknowledges that quite clearly. In the document, the Government recognises that and I am quoting, that there is widespread support for the current governance system and an apprehension towards further change within the system, and the case for significant changes in governance had not been made. On specific proposals, such as the regional governance structure, the response was even more damming and very clear. I quote again, that there was strong opposition against the uniform establishment of educational regions, particularly from local authorities but also from schools, agencies, parent councils and individuals. That is a lot of key players involved with education raising strong opposition to those proposals. It is alarming to see the Government move ahead with the proposals, despite such a negative response. Those people will be wondering why they should bother responding to the next round of consultations on funding models, and I hope that the Scottish Government can offer them some reassurance and some evidence that they are actually listening. Given the lack of support among those who are involved in education, the question must be asked who will be on the SNP and the Conservative benches in this Parliament to support those proposals. The Government quotes Dylan William, a UCL Mertis Professor in the report, given the impression that they are building on his recommendations. However, his quote is somewhat out of context. What Professor William actually said is that there are a number of ways to improve education, a number of ways of being attempted, including changes to the governance of schools, precisely what the Government is proposing, but that, and I am quoting again, the net impact at a system level has been close to zero, if not actually zero. Neither does the OECD report that the Government commissioned back up the reform agenda. It says that there is no one-right system of governance and principle, nearly all governance structures can be successful in education under the right conditions. So why is the Government obsessed with governance reform and why do they not address the real issues of budget cuts and staff reductions that have come out so clearly in the responses to their own consultation? It is not just that those proposals are unwanted or unnecessary, they do bring risk. One of the strengths of our education system is its local democratic accountability. That means decisions that are taken at the closest level to the people they affect, whilst allowing for adequate accountability structures. The Government's proposals do— Wait. Yes. Cabinet Secretary. Mr Greer has just made a point that I have made, which is that decisions are most effectively taken about education as close to where that education is taking place. So would Mr Greer like to marshal for us his objections to empowering schools to be able to take decisions where they are entrusted with the responsibility of educating our young people? Mr Greer. I thank the cabinet secretary for that intervention. I do not need to marshal the arguments because they are in the Government's own consultation document from teachers themselves. Teachers were exceptionally clear about their opposition to what the Government is proposing. The proposals to devolve further power down to head teachers and move other responsibilities up so far to a relatively abstract regional body undermine local democratic accountability. For those of us who believe passionately in local democracy, that is a worrying sign of how little this Scottish Government seems to envision the role for our councils. Those reforms risk energy and money being wasted on an unnecessary and unwanted reorganisation, one that could easily overburden head teachers. After all, they are being given significantly more administrative responsibilities, but the financial issues still exist. Unless the Scottish Government is willing to reverse a decade's worth of cut budgets, it will still be forcing schools to do more with less. Why is the Government so obsessed with governing reforms that teachers do not want? The absence of support among those involved in education has already been well highlighted. As mentioned, it seems to be coming from the Conservative Party. Bob Doris? I am just curious. Is the member suggesting that the green position will be no reforms to education if the status quo is completely acceptable? No one is proposing that, Mr Doris. It is quite clear that no one is proposing that, but those proposals have been met with quite clear, quite overwhelming opposition from teachers, parents and educationalists. That is not to say that no reform is necessary, but the issues that have been highlighted, the consultation document, very clearly highlights, are issues of resource and work code. They have not been addressed by this Government. Please, very briefly. Bob Doris? We are having a debate here. Will the member suggest what reforms he would like to see? I was quite happy. I have been suggesting what Scottish education needs as a reversal of a decade's worth of cuts. It needs those 4,000 teachers that have been cut back in the classrooms. It needs those 500 additional support. It needs teachers back. We know that already. We know that it is cuts that have damaged Scottish education. They have been raised repeatedly by teachers and support staff, parents and pupils, and they are highlighted in the responses to the Government's consultation. Budget issues, staffing issues, those are the problem. It is disappointing to see very little in the Government's proposals to address those issues. As we have said, education has faced years of austerity. I have already mentioned 4,000 fewer teachers. We have mentioned the support staff who have been cut. The staff at local authority level support them as well. Key areas such as additional support needs have seen a reduction in both the teaching and support staff that they so essentially need. The remaining teachers and support staff are now overstretched. Pupils are being left behind through no fault of those overburdened and under-resourced staff. The Government's response to those concerns seems to be to devolve decision making to head teachers. Without enough investment, the head teachers will face exactly the same problem as the local authorities do right now. It is good to see that some money has been made available. The pupil equity fund is a positive step that we have issues with its bypassing of local government. The £160 million that the green MSPs saved for local government in last year's budget helps to address those issues, but there are small steps in the right direction, while great strides are being taken in the wrong one. We ask the Government to acknowledge that governance reform is not what Scottish education needs. It is misguided. It does not address the real problems. We can work together to improve our education system. We can give schools and local authorities the resources that they need. We can enhance, rather than undermine, democratic accountability. We can do something in this session of Parliament that we can all be proud of, but it is not that. The Scottish Greens will oppose those governance reforms and will continue arguing for the support that Scottish education needs. Thank you, Mr Greer. I call Tavish Scott to speak to move amendment 676.2. Does changing the structure of Scottish education tackle attainment? Will it improve literacy and numeracy? Will those proposals encourage more people to teach? If taken in isolation, the answer can only be no. The Government's proposals for who does what must be assessed against everything being done on education. I would rather this debate was on the effectiveness of the national improvement plan announced a year ago. That would be about teacher numbers, their workload and what the plan has achieved for Scotland's young people. It would allow Parliament to debate three factors that we must get right if we were to give Scotland's young people better opportunities in life. The first is the social and economic circumstances of childhood, how kids grow up. All the evidence, both here and internationally, is that these years, before school, dictate what will happen to every girl and boy. The Government proposes a law that will hold councils responsible for supporting teachers in raising attainment. However, the Government knows that attainment is also about social deprivation, poverty, employment and a whole lot more. Councils now have a duty here, too. Children from affluent families are 15 months ahead of their deprived peers in literacy and numeracy as they start primary 1. We should encourage and invest in cutting-class sizes for schools serving socially deprived areas to under 15. Start with primary 1 to 3 and assess what difference that can make. Youth and community work should also be part of that approach. Their role in schools is essential in tackling those social economic factors and should be recognised and enhanced. The minister will be aware in relation to the vocabulary gap that that is entirely part of the focus of my work in terms of the early years agenda, expanding the amount of early years available, expanding the health visitor pathways, for example, and family supports as well on top of that. It is about getting that early intervention in place so that there is work on going. He and I have discussed and debated this in the chamber on many occasions. That is all good, Presiding Officer, but it would also help if the current Government had held to its commitment on reducing class sizes in the early years, which many of us thought and still believe is the right approach in tackling those social economic factors that blight too many lives. The second factor is that teachers and what they achieve in schools matter far more than structural change. What do the Government's proposals do to make space for teachers to teach? Do they create more non-contact time? Do they encourage more people to consider a career in teaching? How will schools be able to recruit to the many vacancies that exist? The enhanced role of head teachers does not recognise that, for many Scottish schools, head teachers also teach. In Shetland, 15 out of 29 heads spend time in the classroom as part of their working week. How are they meant to do more under those proposals? If the Government's island bill is to mean anything, those proposals need to be island-proofed, island councils would expect no less. The third factor is how those proposals address the fundamental concerns over the implementation of the curriculum for excellence, over the central role, in other words, of the Government's main education quango, Education Scotland. The Government wants to enhance the role of Education Scotland, but there are many strong reasons for doing precisely the opposite for splitting the organisation in two. On the accountability of the new structure, it cannot make sense to make Education Scotland the boss of that system, a top-down system, with Education Scotland directors in charge of the regional bodies that have been outlined today. Does anyone seriously believe that a head teacher will disagree with the guidance that flows from that structure? How could that head take a different view when she knows that her school will then be inspected by the same organisation? That is what is wrong with making Education Scotland the judge and jury of Scottish schools. Education Scotland is responsible to the cabinet secretary. Regional directors are responsible not to Parliament, not to local government, but to Education Scotland, so accountability appears not from schools up but from the cabinet secretary down. It will be a brave head teacher who takes on that structure. How, then, will curriculum development now happen? Who will question the performance of the SQA? Improvement should be driven by subject teachers across school clusters, working out what works and needs to change. It should not be driven by the region down to schools. Before the cabinet secretary says that, I am glad that I can get on my feet quickly enough to catch up with Mr Scott, but the point that I made in my opening remarks was designed to address exactly that question, which is about the fact that the regional collaborative is there to support schools in enhancing their educational practice at the behest of schools. It utterly changes on its head the education system to make the support available at the behest of the school. That is a strong argument and needs to be supported by what happens in evidence. My concern about what has happened in the past is that when we had the debate over the number of subjects that our young people should take at a higher level, it was the Education Scotland guidance imposed down on schools that narrowed that choice and made for most education authorities in most schools the choice to narrow it and to make less available to our young people. My evidence of how education—I will give way—is that the Education Scotland's performance over the past number of years is quite contrary to that that Mr Swinney has just laid out. On that point about the guidance from Education Scotland, the issue about the range of subjects used in a school is exactly at the type of decision that has been taken at school level. Not by Education Scotland guidance—I have had this issue out with Liz Smith over many appearances at question time—where schools have had that flexibility to decide and determine how many qualifications were appropriate in their time to you. That is not specified by Education Scotland in any respect. When the inspection regime is one and the same body, there is no ability in the system to test different approaches. I hope that the cabinet secretary might reflect on that for the future, because the example of workload and bureaucracy is telling in this area. In the 52 pages of the Government's document, there are about three paragraphs on reducing bureaucracy. Not one reflects the role of Education Scotland. There is no mention of the 20,000 pages of curriculum for excellence guidance that flowed from Education Scotland into every school. There is a lot to be done in making the case that Mr Swinney, the cabinet secretary, is reversing the whole system when the record of Education Scotland is so clear. Who, indeed, assesses their role? Who is Education Scotland accountable to? Not in a ministerial sense—we understand that—but for the quality of their work and the value that they add to Scottish education. That is the case for splitting the functions. It is not to create a tartan off-stead—few, if any, would argue for that. It is about having a body, yes, that examines what is going on in schools. I accept that independent inspection will be difficult for teachers—it always will be—but an independent inspectorate would also inspect Education Scotland. If a head teacher wants to try a new approach but has conflicting guidance from Education Scotland, an independent inspector can test both. Cluster schools, quality improvement officers and experienced from elsewhere will be part of that. An independent inspectorate can do that. However, if the inspectorate is part of Education Scotland, there will be little pushback, check or straight no to Education Scotland or the regional director, and that is a decent case for reform. Let me finish with my amendment today, which I think is encapsulated in the interim boss of Education Scotland writing in the Herald, where he says that he does not want a turf war over responsibilities. However, what does Government expect? For local government otherwise, it is to roll over and have powers such as the statutory responsibility for education improvement removed. Many councils, as the cabinet secretary has accepted in the debate today, actually have those responsibilities, and I have not heard anyone making a case that they do not do them well. Those proposals, far from delivering consensus, ignore the vast weight of the consultation response that others have mentioned this morning, who have argued that the structure should be left alone. We do not need a turf war, and many across education teachers and parents will believe that that would be a waste of valuable time and effort. It is on that basis— Please conclude. … for reform that I make and move my amendment. Thank you very much. I am afraid that we have no time in hand. In the open debate, it is speeches of five minutes. I emphasise five minutes. I call Jenny Gilruth, followed by Jeremy Balfour. I remind members that I am the parliamentary liaison officer to the cabinet secretary. I know that it is controversial in education, but I was always a fan of homework. As a modern studies teacher, one of my biggest challenges was getting my pupils to engage with the work that we do in here, politics. At the start of term, I would ask every class to bring in a piece of news. It could be from the tele, the internet, or a local paper. The only two caveats or success criteria that I gave them was that it could not be about sport and it could not be about celebrities. That usually helped to narrow the field, but most importantly, the discussions that followed helped me to do my homework to get to know my pupils. When I was elected last May, I made a pledge to my constituents that I would do my homework. I promised to visit every school and to speak to every headteacher about what they thought the challenges in Scottish education were. Despite the regular purda occurrences over the past year, I managed to visit 23 schools in my constituency so far with seven yet to go. I would like to place on record my thanks to every headteacher that I have spoken to for providing me with an honest assessment of where we are. Members may be aware that we used to have subject specialist principal teachers in our secondary schools. Under curriculum for excellence, however, there has been a drift quite recently towards faculty heads who have direct accountability over a number of subject areas. For example, as a former PTC and Fife Council, I had responsibility for five subjects, three from outwith my own subject specialism. To make the jump from being a classroom teacher to a faculty head, there was lots of additional experience expected. However, there was no prescribed leadership route. That is why the first pillar of support on offer to our schools is so important, enhanced career and development opportunities. I would have been 12 in 1996 when the regional organisation structures changed, but, over the class what, I did my homework by speaking to a recently retired and experienced principal teacher. She told me when she was first appointed, that she was faced with four higher classes and little experience of teaching paper 2, which, for the non-modern studies that are literate amongst you, was formally the decision-making exercise. Her regional adviser asked what she was most worried about. She then spent an entire day marking her paper 2 assessments. She then came back to talk to her pupils, providing feedback on where they went wrong and how to improve. She said, that was an amazing experience for me and why subsequent classes did so well. You can tell that he was my hero. That education adviser is today the chief executive of the general teaching council for Scotland, Ken Muir. What a powerful description of the impact it is possible to have if, as the OECD argued, the middle is strengthened, not top down, as Tavish Scott might like to suggest, but bottom up. Sharing good practice was the standing item agenda at my own departmental meetings. If we expect those in front of pupils to talk about what is working well and share it with their colleagues, it is only fair that those further up the tree are expected to do likewise. I cannot be limited for time. The collaborative can and should be used to support staff, as Ken Muir did, providing that professional support and guidance to improve attainment. Our councils will retain control over payroll, HR and democratic accountability for the number of schools in an area, catchments and for appointing head teachers, but our head teachers are the lead learners in schools. In order to lead learning, they should be entrusted as professionals. Just this week, I was in a primary school, and the head teacher there told me that she was getting two probationer teachers as of August. She just found out this week that she was worried about the impact that it was going to have on her pupils and on her staff in a small, quite rural school. She requested input into that process, but she was ignored. That disempower said teachers, and frankly, it is not good enough. Our councils run HR machines, which, in my view, are not always kiltered to the needs of our education system. For example, as a PTC, my geography teacher changed three times within the space of nine months. I, as a line manager—my own line manager, the deputy head—and her line manager, the head teacher, had no say whatsoever in that process. Rather, employment decisions in Fife were taken by someone behind a desk in Fife House who was looking to squeeze capacity out of the teaching workforce, with no cognisance of how moving staff could impact on the pupils entrusted in their care. Teachers are not square pegs to be used to fill round tools, as one head teacher put it to me this week. You need to get the right fit for your school and your pupils. As the OECD evidence stated, school leaders can make a difference in school and student performance if they are granted autonomy to make important decisions. We all know that the status quo is not working in Scottish education. If it was, the attainment gap would not exist. You can look at the OECD, PISA or SSLN, but fundamentally, if you want to know what is going on in Scottish education right now, I would implore members to go out into their constituencies and to speak to their head teachers. Today is the second last day of the summer term, so I will close by taking the opportunity to wish every head teacher in mid-fife and glenawthus a restful and a peaceful summer holiday when it comes. I call Jeremy Balfour to be followed by James Dorn and Mr Balfour. Thank you very much, Deputy Prime Minister. Like my colleague Liz Smith, I welcome in part the way that the Scottish Government is going forward with those proposals. However, I do feel that this is going to be a slightly missed opportunity that we will hopefully, at some point in the next couple of years, pass through reforms and then realise that, in fact, we have not gone far enough and that we are going to have to go back to them again and do another change in yet another couple of years. I think that the clear message that has come from head teachers and from teachers, as I have spoken to them over the past 12 months, is that we can just get it right and then we can be left alone to get on and do what we are paid to do and manage to teach children. What we definitely need to establish over the next two to three years is a system that will last a generation, rather than different parties and different politicians coming back and tinkering with it over and over again. Can I address just two questions and areas in regard to where I think the Government is going? First, it comes back to the regional models. It seems clear to me that this regional group will report to Mr Swinney to the education minister. That must mean that it has some kind of top-heavy structure in it. It is not reporting down to local authority. It is not reporting down to local councillors. It is reporting upwards. The whole parameters will be set by the Scottish Government. I still wonder how you can have localism in somewhere such as East Lothian, compared to West Lothian in my region, and think that one model fits all. I think that there is a real danger that we simply end up with, yes, some more power going to head teachers which is welcome, but just a bigger structure which is further away from parents and children than even we have at the moment. Let me give an example. Will those regional hubs be responsible for school buildings? Will those be the hubs that decide where a new school building is going to be built? If not, where will that decision be made? Again, I come back to the question that I asked the Deputy First Minister last week in his statement. He said in his speech this afternoon that a whole number of people will be part of the regional hub and others. Will that include local elected councillors? For 11 years, I attended a number of parent councillors here in Edinburgh as a local councillor. I was able to listen to them, take those concerns and feed them back in to the education department here at Edinburgh as a local councillor. Where do I go now? What role would a local councillor have in regard to a parent council under this new structure? It seems to me unclear. I think that there is a real danger here that we end up with a less localised model. I have two very quick points to finish with, Deputy First Minister. Those are genuine questions. The first is regarding early learning. Where does early learning fit into the system? Who will deliver early learning? Is it going to be a local council or is it going to be the new regional model? Secondly, additional support needs. It seems to me unclear where those children who are perhaps the most vulnerable in our society fit in. There is a real danger that parental access to the big regional body will become even more unwieldy. Let me conclude by saying this. This is a step, but it is not a step far enough, and we need to keep moving forward. I think that there is a danger that the system act is looking at at the moment will fall through and not provide local parents what children want and what teachers want either. I would like to begin by taking the opportunity to speak in my capacity as convener of the Education and Skills Committee. I welcome the cabinet secretary's open remarks and look forward to seeing the detail of those proposals. The committee will, of course, be paying close attention to the Government's proposed reforms. The Parliament will by now be aware of the Education and Skills Committee's commitment to hearing from a breadth of voices to inform its work in enhanced scrutiny and debate. If I say so myself, that has been very effective. I was pleased to read the cabinet secretary's letter to the committee on 15 June, in which he said that he had taken account of the committee's work and the evidence that he had received. The committee has rigorously examined the performance of the principal national agencies in school education and the role and the delivery of curriculum for excellence. The committee has also highlighted the need for clear lines of accountability in delivering curriculum for excellence. The next step document indicates that the proposed Scottish Education Council will help to ensure that there is a coherence, pace and challenge at a national level. The committee will be interested to find out what the council's responsibilities will be in relation to the delivery of CFE. The broader reforms proposed by the Government represent big changes to the structure of Scottish education. It will therefore be vital that the Education and Skills Committee continues to effectively scrutinise the Scottish Government and its agencies. That includes pre-legislative scrutiny before the bill comes to Parliament 2018. Just before the member gives way, and I never thought I would have to say this to Mr Dornan, but could you move your microphone closer to you? Usually I can hear you loud and clear. Can we make sure that the minute gets up, because that's the first time you've ever asked me to speak up? I'll be careful. Just reflecting on his comments there, would he agree with me that it's surprising, given our deliberations about the role of the SQA in Education Scotland, that there is no critique or analysis of the Education Scotland or its form, and barely any mention of the SQA in those proposals? James Dornan. I think that there's lots of good things in this, and I'll be very interested to hear the cabinet secretary when he comes to the committee after the summer, with the details of exactly what will be in the proposals. I'm sure that all members of the committee have noted the recommendation at paragraph 4.4.4 of the next step document, which emphasises the importance of the SQA listening and being open to the voices of learners, teachers and parents. I'm delighted that the committee will continue with the inclusive approach that we've taken in the last year, and that Scotland's parents, teachers and young people will have their voices heard as part of the committee's work. I will end this part of my contribution with my usual shout-out to those with something to say in Scottish education. Please don't wait to be asked the right question or consultation. We want to hear from you and be led by the issues you raised, and full details of how we get in touch are on our webpage. I'd now like to speak in my personal capacity and move on to the reforms themselves. There are a number of extremely ambitious goals in this document, goals that can only be achieved, in my view, by changing not only the processes but the culture of the many of the players in Scottish education. It's not just me that's saying this. The conference that I mentioned earlier on the next steps, there was general support for a change in culture, the need for a change in culture. It was highlighted by the care bloomer and others. What has to happen is that all parts of the system have to work together. They have to make sure that if we want education to change, they have to work closely and in a different way from what they have been doing so far. I wish the cabinet secretary well with that. We also had Mark Priestley from Stirling University who said in his comments in a blog recently, finally we need a culture in our new governance structures that's focused on future improvement rather than one that is ready to maintain sacred cows presented by past structures, methods and guidance. So there is clearly a fair amount of work to be done on that. I'm hugely enthused by the possibilities that stem from the next step document from creating this school and teacher-led system to enhancing career and development opportunities for teachers through to the regional improvement collaboratives. All of these things seem to me eminently sensible suggestions. Of course, as in all things, the devil is in the detail and I look forward to the cabinet secretary using the summer months to come back with those details for both my committee and this chamber to scrutinise as we think appropriate. Given the importance of my committees, putting the involvement of all those connected to education, not just practitioners are delighted to see the emphasis that the cabinet secretary has put on strengthening the voice of parents. I would have talked about that but I'll see him in the last minute. We all agree that education is crucial to life changes of our children. Therefore, nothing this Parliament or Government does can have any greater importance. And I'm hopeful that the positive next steps are allowed to move forward. If fog sectors can work together in partnership, I look forward to the necessary changes to education being made to the benefit of all our children. And of course, seeing this cabinet secretary in front of my committee to answer questions on the details of the proposals, I support the motion. Thank you very much, Mr Dornan. TV to time, Johann Lamont followed by Gillian Martin. Please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is well rehearsed and well established that there are serious problems in Scottish education of youth that has been shaped by the evidence of parents, teachers, support staff, unions, academics and, of course, international surveys. There is always a danger of being characterised as a curmudgeon by Mr Swinney, willfully refusing to accept what he is deemed to be good news and driven only by a desire to talk Scottish education down. The debate today is so serious that I am prepared to take that risk. As ever I urge Mr Swinney not to shoot the messenger, those proposals do not rise to the challenge faced by education and indeed are in danger of making things worse. Action in the Government's plans for education must be more than lines to take. I believe that any proposals brought forward must show an understanding of what the problems are, should be evidence-based, with more than assertion to back them up, should be radical in their impact, not defending the status quo but challenging it and should be capable of building a consensus in here, within education amongst families, a confidence that those changes will create greater opportunity for all our young people to thrive and achieve their potential regardless of their circumstances. Sadly, Mr Swinney's proposals fail all those tests. It is as if, having conceded that there is a problem, he is reluctant to recognise what the problem actually is and produces solutions that do not relate to those problems at all. There is no evidence that this plan increases resources where they are so desperately needed, improve recruitment and retention of teachers, address the major problems around supply teachers support staff, admin support, the lack of specialist teachers, the reduction of subject choices in too many schools and real support for young people with additional support needs to many of those young people on part-time tables rather than accessing the full education that they achieve. In all of the evidence, and James Dornan is correct to say this, there are loads of evidence before the education committee. I have to tell you that I have yet to hear anyone plea if only we could have more bureaucracy, regional collaboratives and if only Education Scotland had even more power. In all of the evidence given to us, those proposals were not only not suggested, but would have been roundly denounced. Of course, not only is there no evidence for his proposals, his own consultation rejected most of them. Faced with systemic problems, plagued by too much change, poorly introduced, the cabinet secretary introduces further up people with more bureaucracy, with more power to Education Scotland. You could not make it up. He moves to a view that is most explicitly argued by Liz Smith in the Tories, that educational problems emerge from individual schools and be consolved there. That is simply not true. The attainment gap, the experience of young people with additional support needs, the challenge of recruitment in our rural areas, the experience of working boys failing in the first and second year of secondary school, the impact of poverty, what a child brings with them into the school, that is about far more the individual school and its capacity to support individual pupils. The cabinet secretary talks about the autonomy of the teacher and the autonomy of the head teacher. I agree with that. There is good practice to liberate their understanding and capacity, but we also have to understand that the head teacher that we have been told might be able to use the resources that are given to bring in speech and language therapy support, but surely any child, regardless of the school that they attend, is entitled to that support if they need it. If we are saying that the head teacher to be liberated on the curriculum, what if the head teacher decides that he should only run three hires and will not bother with advanced hires because he or she does not believe that that is necessary? We know in politics that a postcard lottery is bad enough, but if you create a lottery based on individual schools, we have a major programme. We all know—I think that the Tories take a slightly different view—all educational provision and where power lies must be a balance. We have to have standards, collaboration, innovation and the capacity for individual schools to support flexibility, but none of that is of any import if it is not backed up by resources and capacity to deliver. If I can just in conclusion, Mr Swinney knows the importance of collaboration. He has had difficulty collaborating with local authorities. I urge him not to create and use structure that is answerable to you, but to insist that people through our local authorities with democratic accountability enhance and bring together the talent ability across the educational world and our families. I sincerely believe that those proposals will block that, create a bureaucracy that does not work and deny the real problem that is about resource and energy that is being put into the education system to support our young people. I call Gillian Martin, who is followed by Tom Mason. In the Government publication on education governance next steps, this phrase sticks out for me. It is the responsibility of this Government to work with our partners in local government to create the culture and the capacity for teachers and practitioners to improve the learning outcomes in their classrooms. Create the culture, give the capacity. That is what governance should do. The teaching and learning should be the domain of the teachers and the headteachers as leaders in their individual schools. They know what works, they want Governments to give them the space, the right support and the right structures to allow them to do that. How is this Government's view going to help our teachers to achieve that? For one, it will address the individual schools' needs by entrusting key decisions to the headteacher who knows the school, its pupils, their families and their needs best. A headteacher will be able to deploy the Pupiletic Equity Fund in a way that works for their school. The headteachers that I have already spoken to are starting to make plans on how they might use that additional funding. For example, they may use to spend it on an outdoor learning programme because they have seen the benefits that that provides, per some big fan of outdoor learning programmes. They may wish to employ additional support specialists if they are a proportion of the children in their care with those needs. They may want to purchase additional learning and teaching aids that the teachers have requested that may help them to improve the classroom experience, but it will be for the headteacher to decide. I have the great fortune to be from Aberdeenshire, and I like to talk about ways in which we are always ahead of the curve. I will do that again now. I was astounded to learn that not all headteachers across Scotland are involved in choosing their own staff. In Aberdeenshire, they have always been involved in the recruitment and selection of the teachers, so it was news to me. The governance review calls for local authorities to get together in regional partnerships. I am sorry, but I do not have time, Daniel. The governance review calls for local authorities to get together in regional partnerships for children and family services. I do not have time for only five minutes. Aberdeenshire led the way in setting up one such partnership with the other northern local authorities. The Northern Alliance is working very well, and it provides, I think, a model for those local authorities who yet to form similar partnerships. It is not as if the Green Amendments are talking about taking power away from local authorities. They are not taking power away from local authorities about sharing good practice across local authorities. The Northern Alliance comprises of Aberdeenshire, Highland, Moray, Orkneyland, Shetland Islands and the Western Islands Council. Working together helps them to share specialist resources, improve outcomes for children by sharing good practice and work together, and not compete against one another when it looks at staff recruitment. One particular strong point in the Northern Alliance is the collaboration of head teachers. They have been coming together to reflect on their teaching and learning with one another and discussing the impact that access to data is having on improvement. They have also done work on finding new ways of working to tackle workload, keeping the family and child at the heart of learning and ensuring an effective evaluation of impact. Their work is directly linked to closing the poverty and attainment gap, and those clusters are a model of a self-improving system. The Alliance also has teacher development days, which assist greatly in knowledge sharing and resource sharing and CPD among teachers in primary stages and in secondary subject areas. Education directors and heads of services also collaborate at their level, agreeing vision and direction and giving support to teaching staff to allow them to make improvements in teaching practice. The early years in childcare teams are working together with the Scottish Futures Trust, focusing on shared resource, planning and quality improvement work ahead of the increase in childcare resource for families in this Government session. Alliance's work and the Government's review's recommendations are a step in the right direction of regional collaborative team working with teacher at its heart. I have a minute just to mention that I want to add that in the Stemsomallic Rowley's intervention about the concerns over budgets for education, I am seeing first hand how the local authority administration can impact on this. As we will know, the SNP was in alliance with Labour in Aberdeenshire up until the last election. We pledged to keep the education budget as it was. No cuts, we pledged no cuts. Now the new administration is cutting services, most recently cutting visiting specialist teachers. This impacts on attainment, this impacts on teacher workload and I am really sorry to say that it is particularly going to affect the very small rural schools that I have in my area, often with teaching heads and very limited classroom teachers who rely on the extra experience to come into the classrooms. It is at council level that we must ensure that no administration makes cuts to education services. We must call council administrations who do that out. I call Tom Mason to be followed by Colin Beattie. This is Mr Mason's first speech to Parliament. First, I must declare an interest. I am currently still a councillor on the Aberdeens City Council. However, for the void's doubt, I will be donating my local government salary to two charities in Aberdeen. Before I go on to the substantive subject of this debate, I would like to spend a little time on more personal matters. I must congratulate my predecessor, Ross Thompson, on becoming an MP. Ross, who was once also an Aberdeen councillor, will now take on the role of championing Aberdeen in the north-east of Scotland down in Westminster. I must pay tribute to the late Alex Johnson, a past stalwart of his Parliament. His passing was a devastating loss not only to our party, but Scottish politics as a whole. Those events and the magnificent success of getting so many Scottish Conservatives MPs elected from the north-east, including two from our list, has allowed me to sit in this chamber today. It was most unexpected, but I am immensely pleased and honoured to be here. Presiding Officer, my welcome here has been profound and I must thank the chief executive and his staff for making my entry into the community of Hollywood such a pleasant experience, albeit bewildering at times. I must also thank my colleagues and other members of this chamber across all parties for their welcome. Presiding Officer, you will notice that I am not in the first flush of youth, but over my 274 years I have learned many things. I have learned that my wife Kate is the most tolerant woman I know. I have been put up with me for 40 plus years. I have learned that my two dogs, Fingal and Bran, give me unconditional love for which I do not deserve. In addition, I have learned that youth of today exhibit an energy and an enthusiasm for life change and enterprise that is to be encouraged. That includes my three children, who never cease to amaze me. I have also learned that most people are honest and well-meaning and at the end of the day just want to get on with their lives and just wish to be well-governed. However, perhaps more importantly, I have learned that for some people life is just not very fair. It is up to us in this chamber and elsewhere to support these people as best we can. Presiding Officer, the north-east of Scotland, and more specifically Aberdeen, has been my home for 45 years. The north-east is also the home to whisky, oil, fish, agriculture and abundant tourism, and has such one of the beating hearts of the Scottish economy, so look after us. Presiding Officer, that brings me on to the standard for the issue of this debate, the issue of school governance. This is the matter that concerns everybody, and one that I am particularly interested in, is that I have been involved with education environment for some 25 years. As my colleagues Liz Smith and Jeremy Balfour have already pointed out, maintaining the status quo in our schools, Governors, is no longer an option for us. I am very glad, therefore, that John Swinney has finally begun to listen to what the Scottish Conservatives have been arguing on this issue for many years. I am very clear in my mind that we need to listen to what teachers and parents want for their education of children in their own schools. However, I also believe that reforms by the recent Governance review do not go far enough, and I believe that the Government's proposal on regional collaboration does not allow for greater diversity in Government structures. Presiding Officer, I thank you. Thank you. There is nothing wrong with being a septogenarian, by the way. I call Colin Beattie to be followed by Daniel Johnson. Presiding Officer, recent reports on Scotland's education system have clearly displayed mixed results. The PISA international study highlighted the declining performance in science and reading compared to 2012, and a deterioration in those subjects since 2006. Numerously it has seen a decline over the years 2011 to 2015 and similarly over 2012 to 2016. It is also clear from the PISA study that, despite the Scottish Government's efforts over the past decade, there is still an attainment gap between children from more and less deprived areas. However, there are also high points to note. The number of higher-level passes has risen by almost 30 per cent since 2007, and passes at advanced level have risen by over 42 per cent in that same period. More than ever, young people are leaving school for positive destinations. In my constituency of Midlothian North and Musselborough, it was reported last week that almost 93 per cent of Midlothian pupils went on to positive destinations in 2016, and roughly the same percentage is also seen in East Lothian. It seems clear from the background that we are getting some things right while other aspects need to be improved. In order to better understand those issues, last month, the Education and Skills Committee took evidence from 16 individuals who worked in some sort of teaching capacity and the responses were highly informative. In all careers, employees have to be motivated with a maximum level of support and minimum levels of stress in order to be at their best, and teachers are no different. The individuals that the committee spoke to made it clear that there are many issues that can affect teachers' morale, lack of progression and development, and promotion opportunities were highlighted. Headteachers spoke of burnout in running a school, and how, when colleagues saw the headteacher under such pressure, it deterred them from seeking promotion. They were references to excessive paperwork, and in particular as part of SQA inspections, and suggestions that there was a lack of trust and respect for teachers on behalf of SQA in Education Scotland. The evidence when these interviews displayed that our teachers could be better supported with subsequent benefit of a higher-quality teaching environment for pupils across Scotland. When this is combined with the information provided from the piece of study in elsewhere, the steps outlined in the Scottish Government's education governance review are, I believe, the right ones to strengthen our education system and to continue the positive work that is done to date. The bottom line of the review is that education will be centred around children and young people while ensuring that the system is led by well-supported schools and teachers. Giving young people a voice in their learning is key to ensuring that teaching reflects those being taught. Therefore, the Government is taking steps to promote that voice by supporting all schools to encourage people participation. It is intended to consult on a requirement that every school pursues the key principles of such participation, so that children can take an active role in the running of their school, both from an educational perspective and for engagement in the local community. The national parent forum's review set out a range of recommendations for how to improve the 2006 act, and those have helped to inform the next steps. There is an intention to strengthen the duties of schools to fully engage with parent councils, expand sections of the act to involve parents from an early year setting onwards, and make proposals to extend links between parent councils and pupils. One point that has been strongly made throughout the Government's review process is the importance of parental involvement with their child's education out with school. Evidence published by PISA shows that, where parents are interested in a pupil's school activities, that child is more likely to want top grades and less likely to report dissatisfaction with their life choices. I welcome the proposal to give every school access to a home-to-school link worker to ensure that families who need help to increase the level of pupil engagement have that support. That will also allow more parents to become involved at a school development level, as well as at home. The Scottish Government is also reflecting on the other non-legislative recommendations that are made by the national parent forum to see what other steps can be taken, and I look forward to hearing those proposals in the near future. One of the fundamental principles guiding the Government's review is that the people's best place to make decisions about our children's learning are those professionals qualified to do so, including teachers, head teachers and stakeholders at local authorities. That follows the conclusions that the OACD reached following its examination of the evidence gathered by PISA studies, which stated, at the country level, the greater the number of schools that have the responsibility to define and elaborate their curricula and assessments, the better the performance of the entire school system. I believe that the steps that are set out in the review of education governance are the right ones to bring Scotland's education back to where it rightly belongs at the top of the global charts. I look forward to seeing progress being made over the coming years. I have Daniel Johnson, followed by George Adam. The issues and challenges that we face in education in Scotland have been well rehearsed and well aired today. We have challenges around literacy and numeracy. We have challenges around our standing internationally. We have challenges around resource, the pressure on teachers. Against this context, of course, we need reform. We need to look at what is going on and how we can put it right. Where we agree with the Government, we will support the changes that it has brought forward. We agree with the proposals around career paths, targeted funding through the people's laboratory fund, support for teaching and parental involvement in schools. There are questions about those reforms, as Johann Lamont put it very well, but there are questions around the assessment of what those issues that we face are and why they have come about. It is far from clear, because it has not demonstrated in the proposals so far how the proposals will actually make an impact or improve the situation. I would like to focus my comments today on the regional collaboratives, because clearly Louise is going to the central organisation, the central structure through which the Government seeks to drive its change. To the extent that those are about supporting teachers, their aims are laudable. We have indeed lost some of the structures that we once had in our system. We have a range of sizes and scales of local authority, some of which struggle to provide the same level of support as others. We have also seen a loss of resource from teaching support, but there is a lack of support for those regional structures coming forward from the consultation. When you look at the structure of what is being proposed, I think that there are questions that we need to raise. Although the cabinet secretary has stressed that this is about teacher-led, about supporting teachers, when you look at the structures, when you look at what is being proposed, where we will have regional directors appointed by ministers reporting to the chief inspector who, in turn, is being described as the chief education adviser to the cabinet secretary, when you also look at the form that this collaboration will take, it will be mandated by statute. Indeed, it will be illegal for local authorities not to collaborate. It is hard to conclude that this is anything other than top-down structures. When you join the dots, this is not collaboration, it is centralisation. However, there are further problems. The OECD pointed out that the need to strengthen the middle to support teachers. Indeed, if we are going to expand the role of heads, they will need that support. However, there is no new resource being proposed. Simply what we will be doing is spreading existing resource yet more thinly. The points raised by Ross Greer and Jeremy Balfour about local accountability, again, are well-made. What we are seeing through this structure is a loss of local accountability. We will have regions backed by central government. In the face of that, it is difficult to see how schools and head teachers will be able to question and challenge, input and discuss recommendations and advice that come with the backing directly from the cabinet secretary and central government. Perhaps the most worrying and questionable proposition is the role for Education Scotland. That is where the bulk of the staff will come from. There will be Education Scotland staff, who will manage them. What that means is that the regional collaboratives will mean a hugely increased scope for Education Scotland. Not only will they be looking after inspection and education policy, but they will be looking after the practical guidance and implementation of that policy. If it was questionable for Education Scotland to have that inspection and policy role, surely the concerns about the blurred role between inspection and practical advice are hugely concerning. What capacity will head teachers have to say no to a regional director who that head teacher knows is employed by Education Scotland—the self-same organisation—that might well be knocking on the door the very next day to deliver an inspection? As other members have pointed out, the evidence of the Education Committee questions the effectiveness of Education Scotland itself. Indeed, John Swinney's very first act in coming into his role was to slash the guidance. Who was responsible for that guidance? Education Scotland. When you look at the issues with literacy and numeracy, there are key questions for the central institutions of education policy and the implementation and design of curriculum for excellence. Rather than analysing the role of education for Scotland and looking at how it can be changed, it has been rewarded and has. There is no analysis of the role of the SQA or the curriculum for excellence managed board or any of those other bodies. Those have been solely lacking, despite the assertions to the cabinet secretary through this year, that the governance review would address the shortcomings and issues that have been identified. Unfortunately, an inconclusion, there is indeed a need for change. The problem with those reforms is that they do not make an assessment of what the issues are. They do not look at how we can address attainment, the impact of curriculum for excellence and, most importantly, it makes no analysis of the impact of the falling resource levels through funding cuts. Without those, frankly, they cannot be supported because simply reorganising will not fix any of those issues. George Adam, to be followed by Brian Whittle. I congratulate Tom Mason on his first speech. No doubt that, regardless of his advancing years, he will probably hear from him from years to come. However, some members will be aware that I was on the education committee during the last term. I have not spoken during an education debate for some time. Some of my colleagues might say that that has been an improvement to education debates, but I would like to think that there are some out there who would think that I have still got something that I can contribute to. I am aware that there is a lot of great work happening in education across Scotland, but we have to move on. We have to look to the future and see how we can do better. There is much in the Scottish Government's document education governance and the next steps that I find quite familiar from my time on the committee. The most important fact is that education should be centred around teachers, parents and, most importantly, our children and young people. It also notes the importance of decision making being made as close and as locally as possible. Part of those new statutory powers will result in headteachers, headteachers chatting over choosing school staff, deciding curriculum content with the broad national framework and directly controlling more school funding. One of the issues that constantly came up during my time on the education committee was that, for any system to be successful, you would need parental buy-in. Parents need to take an active role in the school community, and we need to encourage that. It is not all parents to take that active role in school life, but time and again we see the difference that such involvement can make in a young person's educational attainment. However, it is important that pupils are empowered as well, and that is why I welcome the Scottish Government's plan to strengthen and enhance parent councils and that every school will have a teacher or professional responsible for promoting parental, family and community engagement. Joanna Murphy, chair of the national parenting forum, said that we are extremely pleased that Mr Swinney has announced our intention to consult an amendment to the Parental Involvement Act 2020 as part of the forthcoming education bill. We would welcome the introduction of a bill that modernises, expands and strengthens the legislative framework on parental engagement. I think that that is also a very important point. I also believe that we have talked about school communities or schools being part of our community for far too long. However, like a lot of other things, we have not been quite as proactive within our communities as we would have liked. Schools need to be the centre of our communities, ensuring that decisions are made within the local school community and by teachers locally can, I believe, help to promote that engagement and empower parents, teachers and young people. As a former councillor and a member of the education committee when I was there as well, I know the importance of local democratic accountability. I see those proposals still offer accountability through our local authorities, but the regional improvement collaboratives give us the opportunity to look at working together. That is something that local authorities have not been great at doing. We have talked about it for so long, but they have not been good at sharing best practice and ensuring that we can get that information out there. Strengthening the support of teachers and sharing best practice have been supportive of an idea of a body like that for some time. During my time in the Scottish Parliament's education committee and at Remshire Council, there has been much talk of sharing best practice, but there has been little actual examples of it. I believe that that is where that becomes exciting and can become transformational. Building up networks within local authorities and opening up communication between educationalists, finding out who is doing what, where and what the results have been quickly and sharing that best practice. Nothing in life stands still and I believe that that type of structure can be a catalyst for new ideas and further strategic thinking. The fact that teachers will be supported by attainment experts and ensuring that there is a pool of talent available for head teachers to choose from when they are stepping in the right direction. However, it is not about reinventing the wheel. As I have already said, there is a lot of great work happening out in local authorities, and local authorities will continue to be the employer, HR and other support services. Most important, the democratic accountability will remain with councils for schools in their area and for appointing new head teachers. I have worked with a number of head teachers who, in Renfrewshire Council, there are about four senior head teachers that are leaving. I have worked with a number of them. One in particular was a head teacher called David Nicholls. He is a head teacher of Glynifer High School in Paisley, and he retires after 40 years in teaching. When we speak of leadership and head teachers, I automatically think of people like David Nicholls. David has been involved in education so long that he was at the school when my wife Stacey was a pupil. However, that type of expertise will need to be replaced, and that can be challenging for local authorities. However, many of the powers that are proposed by the Scottish Government will encourage the right people to aspire to the role of head teacher, because it is all about what they can do and how they can change young people's lives and give people the tools to be able to do that. Part of that is the Scottish Government's £750 million attainment programme, which includes £120 million this year for the pupil equity funding going direct to head teachers. It is early days for the plan, but the Scottish Government has provided us with a positive place to start, looking at where we can share best practice, engage with parents and ensure that our children have opportunities to achieve all that they can within school life. I have Brian Whittle, who is followed by Clare Adamson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I declare an interest in that. I have a daughter, who is a secondary school teacher. I also want to congratulate Tom Mason on his first speech in this chamber. I begin by welcoming John Swinney's indicated direction of travel today. I recognise that this direction has long been championed by Liz Smith and her team on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives when it comes to school governance. I think that it is refreshing that every now and again the Government can be seen to take ideas from around the chamber, even if the source of said inspiration for change perhaps remains officially undisclosed. However, you will be happy to know, Mr Swinney, that we magnanimously accept our part in helping the Government to shape its thinking. Having said that, the cross-party agreement may be positive, I would also have to note that his proposals do not go nearly as far as we would like them to go. Perhaps we should describe those plans as being similar to the standard of a certain low-cost airline, promising to go somewhere but coming to land some distance away from the place that you expected. Onward travel is still required to get to the destination that you desire. By now, the chamber would be surprised if I did not take a moment in this speech to discuss the pupil equity fund and its potential use in areas such as outdoor learning. I think that the fund is in many ways a reflection of the cabinet secretary's wider reform agenda. The proposal at its core is a sound one, but it remains to be seen, as Liz Smith has said, if it does exactly what it is intended to do. I note that the cabinet secretary has expressed his support to me in our discussions in the chamber before about using equity funding to support things such as outdoor learning and, importantly, transport costs for school trips. Several conversations with bodies such as the National Trust for Scotland and RSPB Scotland have highlighted the declining numbers of schools visiting their sites in recent years, for the most common reason being given as cost of transport. As we know, outdoor learning at time and learning outside the classroom can have benefits to learn inside the classroom and physical activity, leading to improved focus and fresh air and physical fitness, benefiting mental health and concentration. Some will question whether it is the best use of time and funds and those people who see education as pupils sitting neatly in rows in the classroom every day. However, it should be, as has been discussed, a decision for teachers on how to best deploy those funds for the benefit of their charges. That brings me to the regional improvement collaboratives, which, as has been expressed in the chamber, is perhaps another layer of bureaucracy. There is an uncomfortable sense that the creation of those collaboratives means that schools will be swapping one point of central control for another. It is important that we understand how close to the school the decision-making process will be. As is often the case with politics, it is not necessarily the policy itself but the implementation of that policy that defines its impact. With that in mind, and I think that Tabby Scott mentioned this, when it comes to education Scotland, the proposals seem to call for them to be both referee and player when it comes to curriculum development. I wonder how the cabinet secretary would expect education Scotland to be seen as an impartial auditor of the curriculum when it bears some of the responsibility for its creation. Again, as Liz Smith has highlighted, before I would like to talk about Newlands junior college as an example of a greater autonomous approach, a demonstration of what can be done when new ideas and innovation are allowed into education to address a problem. I was pleased to have visited that college last year to see what we are doing first hand. They are taking disenfranchise young people and helping them to find purpose and direction, ultimately going on to positive distillations and positively inputting into their communities. However, no-one is suggesting for a moment that the same ideas should be applied across the country. Of course, that is the beauty of offering greater autonomy. It does not have to be. Specific solutions to address specific problems. The need for a primatic approach, the need to do what works versus the constant desire for that uniquely Scottish solution. The challenges in the Scottish education system are not uniquely unique to Scotland. Other nations have experienced them and acted. We know what works, but instead of simply taking the big, bold leap if you like, we are presented with a somewhat watered-down alternative, a kind of decaf autonomy—the same appearance, not enough kick. Without education system needs more than anything, is innovation. Giving schools greater autonomy gives headteachers greater opportunity to try new things and tailor their approach to the particular circumstances of their pupils and staff. The world pupils enter when they leave school and continue to evolve. The curriculum for excellence appears to recognise that the range of skills pupils need when they leave school has changed significantly, particularly in an economy in which they are now considerably less likely to have the same job for the duration of their life. If I conclude with a quote from Frederick Mutry, the surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold a higher regard for those who think alike and those who think differently. We need to think differently. Every student is an individual, teachers and headteachers need that headroom, that flexibility to get the best out of the pupils and ensure that youngsters have every opportunity to succeed. The last of the open debate contributions is from Clare Adamson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I first declare an interest as a board member of CERC. I congratulate Thomas Mason on his first speech in the Parliament today. I also empathise with his comments about his dogs. I only have one dog. His wife, as someone who has lived for 20 years with an out-of-hired teacher and union rep, I feel that I have a unique insight into today's proceedings. I want to concentrate on the funding issues that I have been talking about this afternoon. We should remember that the fair funding to achieve excellence, equity and education consultation document is out at the moment, and I would welcome and encourage people to contribute to that consultation. In the opening statement, the cabinet secretary has said that we are clear that, in order to deliver the transformational change to our education system, it must be underpinned by fair and transparent funding that puts schools at the heart of decision making. The way that we fund schools needs to recognise the crucial role of the school and support the collaborative and flexible culture that we are seeking to develop. We must also remember that the Accounts Commission published in the report in 2014 that suggested that it was how local authorities decided to spend their education budget rather than overall spending, which had the most impact on attainment levels. It was about getting the funding to the people most in need that mattered. That is what this Government's review is all about. It is about a school and teacher-led education with the pupil at its centre and with the decisions about those pupils being taken as closest to them. In order to talk about the future and where we might go with this, I have to talk about what is happening right now in my local area. North Lanarkshire Council, who is a Labour Administration and supported into the Administration by the Tories, attempted to divert PEP funding from the control of their headteachers and use it to backfill some of their own education cuts, which was, thankfully, prevented by the Government. The resulting position is that 198 classroom assistant posts have been deleted from North Lanarkshire, having a devastating impact on the schools and pupils that will be affected by the decision. For years, we heard in this chamber that the council tax freeze was underfunded over and over again, a claim that I refuted and, of course, the cabinet secretary and his previous role refuted as well. When local authorities were given the opportunity to be able to use the council tax, the opportunity to raise that by up to 3 per cent to fund such services, of course North Lanarkshire was one of those who chose not to do so. We want headteachers to have the autonomy not only to determine how PEP is used, but to tackle difficult and persistent attainment problems, but also for headteachers to be able to focus on the key business of learning and teaching. The development of a fair, more consistent and transparent targeted method of allocating funding would be to the benefit of all our pupils. The document produced by the Government has two options. One would be a legislative, more standardised, wide approach to allocating maximum amount of funding directly to schools. The second option would be to build on the success of the pupil equity funding approach, targeting the greater proportion of funding directly to schools based on specific needs factors known to impact on performance and for outcomes. The majority of school funding will continue to be challenged through local authorities. That democratic accountability will not be impacted by this. Who will continue to have a role in ensuring that public resources for education are properly accounted for? I'm sorry, I don't have time today. Specifically, the new regime will be consistent and transparent. Impounding headteachers to focus on the key business of learning and teaching is absolutely imperative. They must have the autonomy, and they will be consulted in developing and moving forward. Headteachers charter will be developed in consultation with the headteachers, and they will be able to benefit from the regional support and collaboration to ensure that, throughout Scotland, all our headteachers will have support and advice to ensure excellence in curriculum, excellence in learning, excellence in teaching and excellence in assessment. We now move to the closing speeches. It is disappointing to note that not all those who contributed to this debate are in the chamber for the beginning of the closing speeches, and I call on Tavish Scott. No more than six minutes, please. I don't entirely blame them, Presiding Officer, but there we are. May I also congratulate Thomas Mason on his first speech in this Parliament, and also his very kind words—he's not here, but there we are—and also his very kind words, of which many of us who have known Alex Johnson a long time or knew Alex Johnson a long time would entirely relate to. The other moment of—I wanted to start with to give him a talk about young people, or at least we're trying to have a debate about young people—is 17-year-old Seamus Mackay, who last night won the island games 800 metres. I mentioned that because he beat an athlete, Brian Whittle, who used to coach as well, so I just couldn't resist that. Even worse, Liam McArthur was there to watch it, and not me, but there we are. This has been an important debate and important, maybe, for these two points. Firstly, Liz Smith, Ian Gray, Daniel Johnson, and indeed many others across Parliament today have recognised that there is merit in the proposals that the Cabinet Secretary and the Government are making to do. I do, too, but what I believe a number of us are doing is accepting that, while there is merit, there are concerns, and that those concerns are principally based on the evidence that a number of us have heard in the education committee over the previous year. I hope that Mr Swinney would at least accept that many of us are being entirely consistent about the point that we have made on those concerns, and in particular about Education Scotland. That is the basis for the questions that we are asking of the Government here today. As Johann Lamont rightly says, do not shoot the messenger, at least recognise the concerns that have been there over some period of time. There are significant challenges for Scottish education, and members of all political persuasions have fairly set them out. I am sure that the Government accepts, even privately, that teacher vacancies the need for more classroom assistance, the pressure on additional support needs, the financial pressures on classrooms and the attractiveness of the teaching profession to undergraduates and to people thinking of changing profession are all real factors, really significant issues, and need to be constantly worked on. That is why I made the point about the national improvement plan and the importance of Parliament keeping regularly on top of that as to what is happening. Jenny Gilruth was quite right. She will be true of, I suspect, every member in this chamber. Not only about the importance of visiting schools, which arguably, in my view, is the best part of this job, but also about listening carefully to classroom teachers, subject teachers and head teachers. As I am sure that I am not the only member, they have said consistently again over this past year that implementing curriculum for excellence, the change to the exam structure and the workload pressures of the three aspects of education and of their jobs that have come at them so significantly and consistently over this past year. That is why many of us have sought to make the point about the realism of the challenge that Scottish education faces. However, I want to be clear about my support for the direction of travel, about schools being at the heart of any reforms and the importance of the right support around schools to allow that to happen. Many of us have made the case for school clusters and for the importance of that structure, which can work and does work very effectively. Gillian Martin made the point about the Northern Alliance and its role, and she was right in what she argued. My question in that context again to the cabinet secretary is something that I am sure will debate in the autumn when Parliament comes back and after he has issued further clarity and consultation around this is that his proposals, if I read them correctly, are for a mandatory regional structure and for a mandatory responsibility on local government to collaborate in those regional structures. The Northern Alliance appears to me to be a structure that is working very effectively without any need to make it mandatory. Again, as Johann Lamont rightly put it and as others have said in committee, there will need to be evidence that backs up the suggestion that not all is working effectively in different parts of Scotland. That evidence may be there and it is for the cabinet secretary to lay that out to the education and skills committee and, of course, to Parliament. However, my one point that I want to reflect on is the case for reform in Education Scotland. George Adam or maybe Bob Doris rightly—I think that he was in fairness—Bob Doris rightly asked questions about those of us who need to argue for reform as well. What is our proposal? That is an entirely fair question, but I believe for some many months that Education Scotland is a conflicted organisation given those two roles and responsibilities that appear to me to be quite distinct. It was difficult for Bill Maxwell, the previous chief executive, coming along to committee and seeking to argue and to hold together that inherent contradiction. I hope that his successor, whoever Mr Swinney appoints in the fullness of time, will not have that same contradiction. That is why many of us have made the case, because we believe that that is fundamental to a sensible and constructive reform that does and is about supporting schools rather than leaving in place a situation that I do not believe would be the right form of challenge to improvement that, demonstrially, all of us would be in favour of achieving. Two final points, if I may. James Dornan, in his capacity as convener of the committee, made a strong argument in favour of teachers responding to the proposals that are being made but also to the committee. I believe that that has had merit in the past and I think that it will have strong merit in the context of reviewing those proposals. Finally, Brian Whittle, who made essentially the point about those reforms, that it is not just about the policies, it is about the implementation that matters. That indeed will be the test of what is now being proposed. I would like to congratulate Tom Mason on making his first speech in this chamber. The sense of privilege of being here and having the opportunity to do so certainly has not worn off for me over a year into the job. The Greens are open to working with the Government to improve Scottish education, even if we believe that those proposals to be fundamentally misguided. Although we are opposed to the general direction of the reforms, I would like to offer some areas where we can work with the Government or where we believe that we can. Initially, teacher education needs to improve. It needs to become more consistent, particularly in areas such as equipping teachers to support pupils with additional support needs. I do not underestimate how difficult it will be to do that while respecting the independence of our universities, but I look forward to seeing what the Scottish Government proposes. I agree that routes for career development needs to improve. I have regularly heard feedback from teachers who wish to progress their career without making an immediate leap into management, as Jenny Gilruth highlighted. Members will be aware of my particular insistence for pupils with additional support needs to have that support significantly improved. As our understanding of additional needs has developed, so has our ability to identify pupils who need that extra support. We now recognise that one in four Scottish pupils have an additional support need, although those range from very low levels of support that are required—for example, pupils with mild dyslexia—to the high levels of support that are required for pupils with more significant learning disabilities or physical disabilities. However, the nationwide figure of one in four varies considerably from one local authority to another. Less than one in ten in South Ayrshire, it is more than one in three in the Highlands. The variation is too high to be natural. It has also become clear that there must be enhanced quality assurance procedures for the provision of additional support needs. When considering the enhanced role for education Scotland, or preferably, which I will come to later, a distinct inspectorate, thought must be given to how or if support for those additional needs are being provided, to how inspections can properly assess this and ensure that there is not a postcode lottery for proper support. However, let me be clear, even if those issues are addressed, they do not tackle the most pressing challenges for Scottish education, which are, by the Government's own consultation responses, budget cuts and staff-related issues such as work code. The Government now faces the result of 10 years' worth of budget cuts. We could, and we have, spent more than one afternoon debating the nature of where those cuts came from and if they are fair, but I would rather look to what we can do now. We have the tax-raising and financial powers to put money back into education. It is a matter of political choice if we do not use them and instead see the number of cut teachers and support staff grow. The Greens will be supporting the Labour amendment, particularly as it makes this point about restoring budgets and staff numbers. Bob Doris asked us about reforms that the Greens would support. We support an evidence-led approach and simply do not see the evidence for those wholesale structural reforms. It is certainly not in the Government's own documents, but one reform that we would support, as I mentioned, is the end of Education Scotland's inherent conflict of interest by the creation of a separate independent inspectorate, as such we will be supporting its amendment today. It is wonderful to support proposals in relation to who makes final decisions in employing headteachers, whether they can award permanent contracts. They sometimes have to accept surplus teachers from elsewhere in the local authority, rather than making positive proactive choices on appointing teachers themselves. Is that something that you would consider our movement on? Ross Greer We have significant concerns about the proposal to move employment responsibility to headteachers. I watched a number of written questions on that, so I would like to come back in a future debate once I have had those answers. At this point, we are not minded to support that. Colleagues may recall that we did not support Tavish Scott's proposal the last time that he brought it to the chamber to split the roles of Education Scotland, but we did pledge to seriously consider it. We have done that now, and we believe that that argument has merit. Gillian Martin mentioned the Green amendment and refuted that those proposals take power away from councils, as we say they do. Councils strongly disagree, and they are right. You cannot pretend that moving powers down to overburden headteachers and up to those unaccountable regional structures leave councils with the same responsibility that they had before. They will have significantly less power and responsibility, and they are a democratically accountable body. One particular concern that has been raised with me is the priority given to Gallic media education with a weakened local government role. I hope that the Scottish Government will take that on board. However, the issue so far in this process has been the Scottish Government not taking on board concerns and feedback. Jenny Gilruth quite rightly asked us to go out and speak to teachers, but teachers have spoken quite clearly directly to the Government through this consultation. The Government's own documents note the overwhelming opposition to those proposals, but they will carry on regarding us. The Scottish Government cannot claim that they do not know what the problems are. Through the consultation, through multiple reports in the education committee, work undertaken by teaching unions and others, the problems of budget cuts of staff reductions in workload are clear. We can fix them, but those proposals do not aim to do so. They will take us in a direction that the Conservatives may be comfortable with, but too many in education, too many of those with a significant stake in education, teachers, parents, pupils, educationalists and professional bodies are simply not comfortable with this direction of travel and neither are we. The Scottish Government needs to think again if they are serious about improving Scottish education rather than simply centralising control over it. The Greens will be opposing the Government's motion today. Monica Lennon, no more than six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I extend our congratulations to Thomas Mason on his election and in making his first speech in this important debate. In his opening remarks, Mr Swinney said that he wants a world-class education system and who would disagree. We have heard in the chamber today that there is consensus around the need for change to improve standards in the education system and to give our young learners the opportunities that they deserve. Things cannot go on as they are. Ian Gray, in moving the amendment in his name, explained why Scottish Labour believes the status quo just won't do, but we fundamentally disagree with the Cabinet Secretary's diagnosis and prescription. Unlike the Tories, we won't be supporting the Scottish Government's motion and we certainly won't be supporting the Tory amendment. The Cabinet Secretary's consultation was a golden opportunity to listen with an open mind to what people working in our school communities have to say and to develop a reform package based on what they know will work rather than what won't work. When my daughter, who is unlike Jenny Gilruth, isn't a fan of homework and would like the Cabinet Secretary to make it go away, but when she was at nursery school, the early teacher used to encourage the class to put their listening ears on. It's a lesson that would have served the Scottish Government well. If the responses to the consultation had been properly listened to, we would be having a very different debate today. Ross Greer made the points very well that the reforms have clearly been opposed and there is no evidence to back up the plan that the Cabinet Secretary has settled on. Simply moving the existing education resource around without delivering the urgent investment that is required to support learning in the classroom will contribute nothing towards closing the attainment gap. We heard from Alex Rowley about the impact of cuts, and there has been lots of welcome for the pupil equity fund. However, it only amounts to spin if there isn't an honesty about the deep cuts that have already been enforced. There is nothing in those proposals that directly addresses the key concerns raised in the consultation process. Staffing issues and budget cuts are the key barriers to educational improvement. Despite the spin, the focus of those reforms is structural and centralising, and the result of creating an overarching education council directly answerable to the Government with regional director appointed by the Cabinet Secretary will only lead to the removal of local accountability and more bureaucracy, the exact opposite of what is intended, and that is why the Cabinet Secretary should stop, listen and reset his plans. The Government has had a decade in power, 10 privileged years to look after the education of our children and give them the best possible start. In those 10 years, we have seen falling education budgets and falling attainment. It begs the question, where are the progressive SNP voices? Who in the SNP is speaking out about the underlying issues of inadequate resources? Who in the SNP is prepared to admit that imposing unnecessary bureaucratic reform will not raise standards or close the attainment gap? It is our children again who will continue to pay the price. The facts speak for themselves. 4,000 fewer teachers, 1,000 less support staff, even bigger class sizes than when this Government came to power and spending per pupil across all ages is down since 2012. Mr Dornan would not take mine, but I do not know if it is a convener hat or his member's hat. I am gladly. James Dornan Can you just clarify for me who's responsibility is to hire and fire teachers and support staff? Monica Lennon Mr Dornan had an opportunity earlier on in his speech. When he used the privilege of his position as education convener to be honest about the debate that he was having, he switched between his hats very neatly. What we need to close the attainment gap is urgent investment. I think that Mr Dornan would agree with that if he was prepared to be honest. Urgent investment in our classrooms and our schools is how to deliver high-quality pupil-centred learning. We need more teaching staff. Those reforms largely appear to offer nothing more than bureaucratic top-down restructuring of the system, which will have little effect on helping our teachers to do their job on the ground. Daniel Johnson made an excellent point. Where is the analysis of the impact of falling resources? We have not a single extra teacher or a single extra penny promised to deliver those reforms. It is very difficult to see how those system-based reforms will remedy the issue of resources, teacher numbers and teacher time. What we do welcome from those reforms is the opportunity for enhanced career development opportunities for teachers, delivery of the pupil equity fund and emphasis on parental involvement by enhancing family learning and the role of homeschool-linked workers. I have previously asked the cabinet secretary in the chamber for more information on how many homeschool-linked workers will be recruited. Any update that he can provide would be appreciated. In terms of headteachers, those reforms offer significant new powers for headteachers, but we do any clarity on the scope and scale of those new powers as the headteacher charter progresses. Without clear guidelines on accountability and responsibility for providing HR support, those changes—and I hope that Mr Donan is listening—will put even more risk and burden on our teachers rather than reducing it. There are a number of former teachers in the chamber who should be alive to those risks. Additionally, any procurement— You must close, Ms Lennon. Finally, we have entered into this because we all want to tackle the attainment gap. However, what we have seen is that, in black and white, the Government's own consultation responses have largely been ignored. The cabinet secretary needs to ditch those plans and urge him to return to Parliament with concerns of teachers, parents and children— Ms Lennon, you must close. Graham Simpson, no more than seven minutes please. I also praise Tom Mason for his maiden speech and congratulate him for booking a trend in this chamber and being well within time. I am sure that it will not catch on. Now, way back in March 2013, the commission on school reform published a detailed document called Bidiverse Means. Headed by Keir Bloomer and consisting of cross-party representation, I was the Conservative rep, as well as experts with no party baggage. It was a serious and detailed attempt to suggest ways in which we could improve Scotland's educational performance. Nothing has happened since to do that. We have got worse. Our paper started with two quotes. Bydiverse means that we arrive at the same end from the French philosopher Montaigne and never tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity from General George S. Patten. In other words, trust people to do a job and allow them to do it in different ways. It was clear then and clear now that the education system in Scotland is too uniform. Maybe not for a Labour whose position in this debate has been unclear and even more unclear after Monica Lennon's contribution. That uniformity is why the Scottish Conservatives have been arguing for years that we need greater diversity in the system and that we need to empower properly head teachers. On that last point, it is good to see that the SNP has finally arrived at the table talking about autonomy, leaving teachers free to teach and involving parents more. But, of course, the devil, as always, is in the detail and when you look at it, it starts to unravel. The background, as Liz Smith, John Swinney and Colin Beattie have all said, is that our educational performance is in the See Me After School category. Our standing internationally has declined since the SNP came to power. That was highlighted last year by the PISA scores that Liz Smith recounted. Just at the weekend, we learned that more than half of school leavers last year did not have a maths qualification at national 5 or above. If education really was this Government's top priority, we would not be in this position. The commission on school reform argued that only through promoting increased variety in the system would we see future improvement, the way to achieve that would be through increasing the autonomy of schools. But what is autonomy? John Swinney uses the word, but I wonder if he understands it or even wants it. Autonomy is freedom from external control or influence, the right of an organisation to govern itself. That would mean, for example, schools being able to commission services from whoever they choose. That would be genuine autonomy. Is that what John Swinney is proposing? The answer is no. If you wanted to design a system that was more bureaucratic and centralised than the one we now have, then you would need to look no further than the cabinet secretary's blueprint. If John Swinney was a localism proponent, he would be saying to the parents at St Joseph's primary in Mulgyi that they are free to make their school autonomous from state control if that is what they want. But he isn't. He would not be setting up an extra layer of governance, the regional improvement collaboratives, reportable and accountable, not to locally elected members but to him. When I suggested that this might be the arrangement to Mr Swinney in the chamber recently, he denied it. But here's the evidence from his own paper. When describing how these giant new bodies would be run, it said that they would be, quote, led by a regional director to be appointed by the Scottish Government and provide a direct line of accountability for the performance of the regional improvement collaboratives to ministers. So there we have it. John Swinney appoints the regional directors and they're answerable to him. Any pretence that this is about empowering anyone other than John Swinney, despite his earlier protestations, is a smokescreen. Your children's education in the hands of Mr Swinney and Woby Tide, anyone who steps out of line. What will these new bodies, up to seven of them, actually do? They'll provide educational improvement support. They'll produce an annual regional plan and associated work programme, and councils will have to meet a new legislative duty to collaborate on certain functions. What's left for local government in all this? It's been stripped of powers. Councils will be left with a few admin functions and HR. What's the point of having education committees any more? Or, as Jeremy Balfour said, education directors. There isn't any. Daniel Johnson, who wanted to intervene, rightly mentioned the loss of local accountability. He's entirely right. John Swinney talks about empowering head teachers, something that Scottish Conservatives have been calling for for years. The generous Mr Swinney is going to allow them to choose their staff, decide on curriculum content, which they can do anyway, and have control over more of their funding, though not all of it. Just in case anyone has any ideas above their station, he warns darkly in that same paper the freedom for head teachers to choose the staffing mix and management structure within their schools could have implications for the national pupil-teacher ratio, which suggests to me that heads can't decide on staffing numbers. That's not true autonomy. Gillian Martin seems to think otherwise. John Swinney wants to create a system where schools will be answerable to two bodies and ultimately to him. He's stripping councils of powers and going down a regionalisation route. We can be certain that this is the route that the SNP wants to go down with council services full stop. We do need more autonomy in schools. We need choice. That is not it. I hope that John Swinney is really prepared to listen to the many voices in this chamber. I call on John Swinney to wind up this debate. Let me begin by extending my words of welcome to Tom Mason on his introduction to Parliament and his first speech in this debate today. I wish him well on his task that he committed himself to of representing constituents in the north-east of Scotland. I also associate myself very much with his kind words about Alex Johnson, who was very much a colleague in this Parliament to display all the attributes of a fine parliamentarian in working with members across all aspects of the political spectrum and is dearly missed within Parliament by all of us. The one thing that has been crystal clear to me since I became the education secretary 12 months ago is that there is a diversity of opinion about what to do in education. That has been on display across the chamber today. It is not meant to be a funny remark, but although I appreciate my natural hilarity in front of the chamber, it is a statement of the reality of the debate that there is not a true holy grail about what is absolutely the right thing to do. That is why I started off my remarks by saying that the Government is interested in working with others to address the issues that are contained within the Governance review. However, if I can gently point out to the Conservatives that there is a little bit of a natural contradiction in some of the arguments that they have marshaled today, marshaled just by Graham Simpson and also by Jeremy Balfour with the arguments of Brian Whittle and Liz Smith. Brian Whittle and Liz Smith argued very strongly about giving ever more power to head teachers, much more power that is envisaged under this, which would naturally have to come from somewhere, which would be local authorities. Graham Simpson and Jeremy Balfour made the argument for the preservation of local authority power and responsibility. I am all for a diversity of opinion, but I simply point out to the Parliament that that is a bit of a challenge for even me to reconcile on the front bench of the Conservative Party. Of course I will, yes. Graham Simpson. It is really just for Mr Swinney's clarity. What we are saying is that the new regional bodies amount to greater centralisation and not autonomy. Head teachers will be answerable to regional bodies, not locally accounted elected members. John Swinney. I want to talk about the regional collaboratives in a second. The accusation has been made that I have been inferred that I do not listen to teachers or to members of the teaching profession. I want to make it clear to Parliament that I spend a significant amount of my time listening to teachers, to head teachers, to many members of the profession. On the very frequent visits I make to schools around the country and to private opportunities for me to speak to teachers. Many of the issues that have been raised with me by teachers are the reasons why the proposals are what they are before Parliament today. The areas of agreement that we have today—despite all the differences of opinion, there is a lot of agreement here—is that there is a commitment from the Government to empower teachers and to put schools at the heart of the reforms and to empower head teachers. Those are all sentiments that have been expressed to me by teachers and made powerfully to me by teachers. Iain Gray. We have had this discussion before when the Education and Skills Committee gathered evidence from teachers. The cabinet secretary dismissed that evidence and said that he had spoken to teachers and agreed with him. Now we have the Government's own formal consultation process, which disagrees with him, but he posits to us the idea that all the teachers that he speaks to on his visits support what he is doing. Can he say that that is not a valid way to govern? People cannot, on the one hand, accuse me of not listening to teachers and then accuse me of listening to teachers at the same time, which is precisely what I am doing in this process. To look at some of the other areas of agreement, let us look at the issues around regional collaboratives. John Lamont made a comment—Iain Gray has made a point that he can see merit in the regional collaboratives to provide educational improvement services, and that is the purpose of those regional collaboratives. John Lamont made the point—I think that I heard her correctly, but if I misquoted her, she can correct me—that she made the case for requiring collaboration between local authorities. That is the point that was made powerfully by George Adam in his own contribution. George Adam made the point that local authorities have not been good at sharing best practice. The Northern Alliance that Mr Scott talked about is a voluntary collaboration, and I welcome it. I pose the question that it is the only effective collaboration in the country. I am in receipt of advice, as is Parliament, from Education Scotland and from the Accounts Commission, both of which highlight weaknesses in educational improvement services offered at local authority level. The regional collaboratives are an attempt by me to try to address those issues to ensure that every school in the country, no matter where they are, has access to regional improvement services. I will give way to John Lamont. There is no collaboration. In fact, I go back far enough to regional councils, where there are very good examples of liberation at a local level, but I work across councils. We have a problem with fragmented local authorities. My point is that the model that you produce is highly bureaucratic. It hurts your brain even to read what is doing there. What we should be doing is to work to the best instincts of people to work together, and there is a lot of that very good practice already there. Since I agree with the sentiments that underline John Lamont's intervention, I want to see liberation at local level in schools, but I want to see collaboration about best practice across a wider canvas. It does not exist in sufficient abundance or sufficient depth today. That is not just my opinion, that is the assessment of Education Scotland and the Accounts Commission into the bargain. Clearly, and there is other agreement today around parental involvement, where our proposals have been warmly welcomed by the national parent forum, and also about career progression pathways. I take from this debate quite a substantial amount of agreement about the details, but I do accept that there are issues to be addressed about regional collaboratives and about the role of Education Scotland, in particular the issues raised in Tavish Scots amendment. That is why I set out in my opening remarks the fact that we are not going to have top-down regional collaboration shifting power towards ministers. That is not what we want. I will give way to Ms Forbes. Can the Deputy First Minister outline how his plans around school governance will build momentum around Gaelic medium education? It is, of course, right to put more money and power into the hands of schools and teachers. That would remain a key responsibility for local authorities as part of the process. We set out in the document the role that we would expect local authorities to take forward an important role to strengthen and to develop those aspects of educational practice. In my comments earlier on, I made the point that we would not be having top-down regional collaboration. Mr Gray forgives me, I have to draw my remarks to close. I also clarified that education policy will be the responsibility of the Scottish Government. That is who owns responsibility for education policy. It is not owned by Education Scotland, it is owned by me as the Cabinet Secretary responsible in that respect. I have no problem with the amendment from Tavish Scots, because those issues are issues that we will satisfy to address. I am sorry that I cannot take an intervention from Mr Gray, but he accused me of wanting to run schools from St Andrew's house and of not trusting teachers. I just want to put it on the record to Parliament today. I have no desire to run schools from St Andrew's house. I have every desire to trust teachers, which is why I am bringing forward proposals to empower teachers and to empower the teaching profession. I want to see an active, all-system approach to improving the capacity and capability of Scottish education for one important purpose, to transform the life chances of every single young person in our country. That is at the heart of the proposals that we have been forward, and that is why the Government will talk to interested parties about how we advance the level of agreement that we have in Parliament today to take forward and implement those reforms. That concludes our debate on education governance. The next item of business is consideration of motion 6346 on the code of conduct for members and motion 6347 on the interests of members. I call on Clare Adamson to speak to and move the motions on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has reviewed the code of conduct for members of the Scottish Parliament and the written statement form that members are required to complete when registering interests. We felt that the code could be more streamlined and user-friendly and we wished to avoid the confusion that sometimes arises between what constitutes an enforceable rule of the code and what is provided as guidance and best practice. I am happy to reassure the chamber that none of the rules within the code has been altered or removed, but the wording of some has been altered where we felt that the code could provide greater clarity. Our report code of conduct for MSPs and written statement revisions sets out the recommended changes and we propose that existing four-volume structure be replaced with a single code of conduct document that is as succinct as possible and a companion guidance document. The new format of the code means that the determination by which the Parliament agreed the format and content of the written statement needs to be updated. We also took the opportunity to make some minor textual changes to the form, which means that it reflects more closely the governing registration of interests. The new written statement form is annexed to the motion and appears in annex B of the committee's report. All MSPs have been consulted in the revised determination as required by the standing orders. Members, as ever, will be able to seek advice from the standards clerks on all matters relating to the code of conduct and the register of interests. Thank you very much. The next item of business is consideration of business motions 6, 4, 2, 3, 6, 4, 2, 4 and 6, 4, 2, 5, which set out a business programme and the timetables for two bills at stage one. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motions to say so now. I would call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motions on block. Thank you very much. No member has asked to speak against the motions. Therefore, I put the questions to the chamber. The question is that we agree motions 6, 4, 2, 3, 6, 4, 2, 4 and 6, 4, 2, 5. Are we all agreed? Thank you. We are agreed. The next item of business is consideration of seven parliamentary bureau motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the bureau to move motions 6, 4, 2, 6, 6, 4, 2, 7, 6, 4, 2, 8 and approval of SSIs, motions 6, 4, 2, 9 and 6, 4, 3, 0 on designation of lead committees and motions 6, 4, 3, 4 and 6, 4, 3, 5 on committee membership and substitution on committees. I move all together. Thank you very much. There are eight questions in total to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment 6, 3, 7, 6, 0, 1 in the name of Liz Smith, which seeks to amend motion 6, 3, 7, 6 in the name of John Swinney on education governance next steps be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division and members may cast their votes now. This question is that amendment 6, 3, 7, 6, 0, 4 in the name of Ian Gray, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of John Swinney be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment to the name of Ian Gray is yes, 30, no, 93, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 6, 3, 7, 6, 0, 3 in the name of Ross Greer, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of John Swinney be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Ross Greer is yes, 30, no, 92, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 6, 3, 7, 6, 0, 2 in the name of Tavish Scott, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of John Swinney be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 6, 3, 7, 6 in the name of John Swinney as amended on education governance next steps be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 6, 3, 4, 6 in the name of Clare Adamson on the code of conduct for members and written statement revision be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes, point of order, Mr Greer. Thank you, Presiding Officer. When you asked for a verbal vote on the Government's motion as amended, we said no. There was a division. I did not hear it. I did look over it because I thought I heard it and I looked over it again. However, we will rerun that vote if members wish to. I think that it is only fair to make sure that we record an accurate vote. We will put the question once more. The question is that motion 6, 3, 7, 6 in the name of John Swinney as amended on education governance next steps be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Therefore, we will move to division. Members may cast their votes now. Thank you. The result of the vote on motion 6, 3, 7, 6 in the name of John Swinney as amended is yes, 96, no, 27. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. I would urge—I do not normally ask members to speak up, but in this case I would ask members to speak up, please. The next question is that motion 6, 3, 4, 6, and this is just for clarity to make sure that we are agreed, the name of Clare Adamson on the code of conduct for members of written statement revision be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next question is that motion 6, 3, 4, 7 in the name of Clare Adamson on the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I propose to ask a single question on the seven parliamentary motions. If any member objects, please say so now. No member is objecting. Therefore, the question is that motions 6, 4, 2, 6 to 6, 4, 3, 0, and 6, 4, 3, 4 to 6, 4, 3, 5 all in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. I will now move to members' business in the name of James Kelly. I will just take a few moments for members to change seats.