 Rydw i bobl yn cael ei ffordd i ei fan y gwasanaeth a rydw i'r wybod gyda unig hwnnw i ffostadau a gwybod rahschodd y Corsysgol y gallu rydw i'r ddiweddion ar gyfer hynny. Rwy'r cyfrifsgweithio. Yn hynny, mae angen y cwestiynau yn cael ei gwaith cysylltuасol i ni o bwysig yng Nghymru i'r graf Llywodraeth yng nghymprifegwydol i'r neimwg Ginai Gaelig i'n wneud Oedden, I now call on Jackie Baillie to speak to you and move the motion. Fourteen minutes, Ms Baillie, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Today, Scotland remains a deeply unequal country and that has a direct impact on our economy. Our objective to boost the economy at the same time as tackling inequality is an ambition, I believe, shared across all of this chamber, including the Scottish Government. There is no doubt that recent times have been tough for businesses across the country, whether you are in a larger or small business, in manufacturing or retail in urban or rural Scotland. The economic downturn has had an impact. Markets were tighter, turnover declined and the workforce contracted. In short, the economy struggled, businesses suffered and working people experienced the worst cost of living crisis in decades. Things are beginning to improve. The economy is showing signs of growth. Employment is increasing and confidence is starting to improve, too. However, the most recent quarter shows a mark slowing down in that growth. Although I want to recognise the achievements of our businesses in growing our economy, we equally need to recognise that we have nothing to be complacent about. Despite the growth, the recovery is not shared by everyone who is in work. Too many people are caught in one of the worst cost of living crises in decades. There is continuing uncertainty with zero-outs contracts, low wages and underemployment. That matters if we are to address inequality, because it is not just a matter of fairness, it is also an economic issue. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the International Monetary Fund and others point out that countries that have relatively high degrees of wealth and income inequality have lower levels of economic growth. In a second, it is in the interests of us all to address the issue. I am happy to give way at this point, if that helps. I was perfectly happy to wait, but thank you to the member for giving way. I wonder whether the member has had an opportunity to consider the call from the STUC for us to look again at whether or not powers over employment, for example, should be included in the package of powers that are to be devolved to the Parliament, given the circumstances that have arisen in the recent general election? I thank the member for his intervention. We have an opportunity tomorrow to debate the full devolution package, so I look forward, because I will be speaking to engaging with him in more substance on that issue. However, our economy needs to be rebalanced, so that when we talk about the number of jobs that are created, we are not simply counting temporary, low-paid, zero-hours contract jobs in our country. We know that much of the vaunted recent rise in employment figures is almost entirely down to an increase in part-time, low-paid temporary jobs. Just this week, we saw the BBC reveal that only 10 of Scotland's 50 largest employers paid the living wage. Last week, a major employer, perhaps renowned for offering low-paid jobs and low-security work, saw the value of their shares rocket when the Tories secured their majority. The Parliament is not a place to sit on our hands and moan about the UK Tory Government, although I confess that there will be lots of scope, because there will be areas where we fundamentally disagree with them. However, the SNP promise in the general election was about securing a stronger voice for Scotland at Westminster. Our mantra in here surely is about securing a stronger voice for fairness and social justice for the people of Scotland in this Parliament, because Scotland could have led the way in promoting better pay, in banning exploitative zero-hours contracts in the procurement reform bill just last year. Unfortunately, as we all know, the SNP joined with the Conservatives to vote against Scottish Labour plans for better pay and for security of hours for workers, cleaners, carers and retail staff. They did not just do it once, they voted against it five times, so it is about using the power that you already have. I have heard the Scottish Government demand the devolution of job-creating powers for this Parliament, and I support a powerhouse Parliament that is able to tackle inequality to pursue social justice. However, many of the powers that we need for economic development are already with this Parliament, so I urge the SNP to use them now to tackle the inequality that hampers our economy and the life chances of too many people. OECD research has shown that inequality has cost Scotland an estimated 8.5 per cent of GDP over the past 25 years. We know that a fair economy means a better economy. We all have a better chance of success if we all have the same opportunities to succeed. Inequality stifles economic growth, so we all want a strong and prosperous economy, but one in which all share in that prosperity and on the basis that the member has a loud voice, I'll let him in. Inequality, does Ms Baillie agree with me that we should have welfare powers in this Parliament rather than saying the constant cuts that are coming from Westminster, which are having a major effect in creating a more unequal society in Scotland? The record continues in the same groove. I would have more respect for the member's position if we worked together to use the powers that we have now that could make a real difference to people rather than putting it off to some point in the future. However, we need to create the opportunities to recalibrate our economy in the long term by making the best investment that any Government can make, and that is in our people. You don't just need to take my word for it. A famous economist, Professor Joseph Stiglitz, proposed three solutions to inequality in his book, the Great Divide and Equal Societies and what we can do about them. The third solution is education. Education is much more than a social policy. It should be part of any Government's strategy for long-term economic development. Despite having full control over education for nearly a decade, the SNP's track record on it, especially entertainment, is a national scandal. I welcome the cabinet secretary's tone and comments from her lecture last night, when she admitted that the Scottish Government should be doing much better in education and we will work with her to improve education in Scotland. However, it was, of course, the First Minister herself who said that a party in its second term of office cannot avoid taking responsibility for its own failings. In educational attainment, the failings are severe. We are failing our young people as a consequence. The number of young people in Scotland gaining national three to five qualifications dropped by 20 per cent in a year. That's over 100,000 fewer young people getting the grades that they need to get on in life. Under the SNP, we have seen literacy levels in primary and secondary school fall at every stage survey. Now, they are shaking their heads. I didn't make this up. These are facts from surveys undertaken. These are the Government's own figures. Under the SNP, the proportion of pupils performing well or very well in reading fell from 2012 to 2014. Those declines in performance can be seen at every stage—primary 4, primary 7, the second year of high school. However, at every stage, we see pupils from the most well-off backgrounds with higher performance than pupils in the middle and most deprived backgrounds. That should be a concern to us all. The proportion of second-year high school pupils from the poorest backgrounds performing well or very well at numeracy was a mere 25 per cent. That should shame us all. Let's be clear what that means. Under the SNP Government, Scotland's children, especially those from the most deprived backgrounds, are not getting even the most basic of skills. Our children's ability to read, to write, to count has all gone backward under the SNP. It is, without question, a national scandal. We cannot simply pay lip service to that and say how bad it is. The Scottish Government really must take action, because that matters not just to those individuals, but to the future state of our economy. The education secretary said that she planned to take stock after six months on the job. Let me say as gently as I can that her Government has been in power for eight years. Taking stock after six months is not enough. All those failures, all that regression, all of that denied opportunity has been taking place on the SNP's watch. There is a general pattern that emerges when this Government is held to account on its record. It is our responsibility in this chamber to do so. I recall that opponents often accused of talking down Scotland, or they used those that work in that particular service under scrutiny as some kind of human shield. Let me be clear. When I point out the problems that we have in education in this country, I am not blaming teachers. I am not blaming students. I am not even blaming parents, because the blame lies squarely at the door of this SNP Government. Today, teacher numbers are at a 10-year low, with over 4,000 fewer teachers in Scotland's classrooms since the SNP came to power. The 2007 manifesto promise to cut class sizes has been completely abandoned. It is therefore little wonder that we have gone backwards. Closing the attainment gap in education will have a long-term benefit to our economy. Lower attainers are more likely to be unemployed, working part-time, earning less. Those earnings are substantially less—more than £20 a week for men, more than £40 a week for women. That is why Scottish Labour considers that closing the attainment gap should be Scotland's number one priority, because it is good for individual people and it is good for our economy, too. We want to see overall attainment rise. That should be the ambition of the Government, especially in the areas of literacy and numeracy, where we have failed so badly so far. Our proposal is to close that attainment gap with £25 million per year of extra investment in our education system—£125 million over the period of the Parliament. That extra investment, we would use to double the number of teaching assistants to employ 200 literacy teachers and focus their work in the communities with the 22ndary schools and the associated primary schools, where working-class kids have been most left behind by the SNP Government. We are committed to raising the performance of the lowest 20 per cent achieving pupils wherever they study, and we will support the parents of those children to ensure that they have the reading and writing skills that they need to support their children. Those are the choices that we would make. Happy to give way. The member to inform my speech later gave me the cost of employing a literacy teacher and the cost of employing a classroom assistant. I am happy to tell you that a classroom assistant being advised is £20,000, and we thank 30 for a literacy teacher, but I am happy to confirm that in writing to the member afterwards. I also indicate to the member that, as a result of his intervention, we have placed at the back of the chamber a table that gives it—I do not think that he is listening. The member is clearly not interested in the debate. For your benefit, we have placed a table in the back of the chamber to which the member referred to in his earlier point of order. Those are the choices that we would make. I do not need to remind anyone in the chamber that the language of priorities is indeed the religion of socialism. We would make those changes by using the new powers coming to the Scottish Parliament to introduce a new top rate of tax at £0.50 in the pound. The investment is not just in our most disadvantaged pupils to get a better start in life. It is an investment in the future strength of our economy. It is right that those with the broadest shoulders should pay a little more to deliver the investment that Scotland needs to be a fairer nation. After all, that is what progressive politics is all about. Before the general election, the SNP adopted swathes of Labour policies. They wrapped themselves in the red flag, the mansion tax, the bankers' bonus and the £0.50 rate of income tax, which, through the Smith agreement, they will have the power to deliver on that pledge soon enough. I note that the Government's amendment today removes any mention of using the £0.50 rate to invest in our education system and improve attainment. Why is that? Are the SNP about to backtrack on fair taxes? Only a few months ago, SNP MSPs in the chamber voted against using a higher rate of tax to invest in our education system. Yet, within weeks, we saw an SNP manifesto backing the move, so which is it? Scottish Labour is clear that we will use fair taxes to close the attainment gap in this country. We believe in progressive politics that we will build a fairer Scotland and a stronger economy in doing so. Before I call on Angela Constance to speak to and move amendment 13203.3, can I just invite members to press the request to speak buttons if they wish to take part in the debate? I now call on Angela Constance. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I very much welcome this opportunity to debate in tandem about education, our economy and inequality and how we are going to tackle it, because they are all inextricably linked. Of course, it is this Government that has done more than any past or previous administration in the UK to promote the living wage. It is clear to me that all of us in this chamber share a commitment to tackling inequality and, at times, its devastating impact on our society and our economy. It is important to remember that we are not just talking about an abstract but real lives and our children's future. If we put the interests and needs of our children at the heart of our debate, I hope that we can find some agreement and more ways of generating light rather than heat on such a vital issue. I do, however, want to address the errors in Labour's assertion about young people's achievements and examinations in recent years. In First Minister's question time last Thursday, Ms Dugdale claimed that recent research showed, I quote, 102,000 fewer candidates getting the grades that they need to get on in life. That, Presiding Officer, is simply not the case, given that in any year there are only ever around 150,000 candidates presenting for qualifications. Labour appears to have confused the number of candidates with the number of entries for examination, yet everyone knows that most candidates are presented for several qualifications in a moment. The Scottish Qualifications Authority's own data shows that total entries and passes at levels 3 to 5, as expected, did drop last year, but not because of failure, but because of success. Our young people, supported by teachers and education authorities, have successfully transferred to the new system, in line with changed curriculum models, whereby they take fewer qualifications in S4. That is well known and does not reflect the performance at exams of our young people, nor does it reflect on the system itself. Thank you. I think that the cabinet secretary is correct in her assessment about the number of presentations. Is that not in itself one of the key issues in that fewer presentations are being made because of the change to the exam system, and that has knock-on effects to higher and advanced hires and the concerns of parents are that they will end up with fewer qualifications, even though the existing ones might actually be quite well taken? I think that what Ms Smith is feeling to understand is that the overall purpose of the curricular reforms is to maximise performance of children by the time that they leave school. The reasons for the changes are indeed related to the curriculum, and I wonder at times whether the Conservatives and Labour benches remain absolute in their commitment to supporting curriculum for excellence. In the new arrangements, pupils do an extra year of what we call broad general education, which is something that we all understood. Under curriculum for excellence, children maintain a full range of subjects through to S3, and they only begin to drop subjects then, typically focusing on a smaller number of formal qualifications in the course of S4. They then go on into S5 to be able to focus in-depth on the subjects that they have continued studying. A small percentage of young people still leave. I do not accept some of the analysis that the cabinet secretary has presented in closing the debate. I will try to address some of that. On that particular point, those pupils will only be able to proceed to higher in the fewer subjects that they have studied if they pass those subjects. The same SQA statistics that she is quoting show that, for levels 3 to 5, the pass rate dropped from 92 per cent to 83 per cent. At level 5, what was credit level, to below 80 per cent, 79 per cent. Attainment has fallen. Of course more young people took and sat higher. What Mr Gray is failing to realise is that the new qualifications is a shift towards deeper learning, where we have more analysis, engagement and understanding, where pupils generally study a wider range of subjects, as I said at S3, and focus on a smaller number of qualifications at S4 on their way to studying higher. Of course, no, no, thank you. Of course, we know that a small percentage of young people still leave school at the end of S4, and under curriculum for excellence they will do so with a firm foundation. The percentage of young people leaving school with no qualifications has reduced drastically in recent years, further and faster than under Labour, and now stands at 1.5 per cent. I think that it is really sad that the Labour Party has chosen to misrepresent Dr Scott's painstaking collection of data. As we go through the official record, I think that people will be able to see that the facts stand for themselves. We have a record to be proud of, and I will talk more about that in closing as well, but we will absolutely not do more from the fact that much more needs to be done. It is a pity that the benches across here won't recognise that where we can make useful comparisons is that we can make comparisons between hires taken in 2012-13 to 2013-14, level 6, which is mainly hires. We have seen the total number of entries increasing from more than 182,000 to more than 191,000, and vitally we are seeing the number of qualifications gained increasing from more than 144,000 to more than 148,000, and that is a record number, in fact. I am totally committed to curriculum for excellence and its principles and approach to learning. Curriculum for excellence will deliver the skills, knowledge and experiences that we want to see for all our children and young people. Curriculum for excellence is a success story that has still been written. No thanks. The OECD's review of our education system in 2007 praised our vision for curriculum for excellence. The next review, which begins next month, will focus on the implementation and the broad general education to provide us with valuable independent evidence drawn on the experience of other countries. Now, as Miss Bailey recognised, last night, I set out my priorities, my values and my aspirations for Scotland's education system. I want Scotland to have an education system that is fair and which provides excellence to all children irrespective of their background or circumstances. An education system that does not settle for good enough but aims high, giving children the skills that they need to thrive rather than simply survive. No thank you. An education system that is focused on attainment and achievement, built around delivering equity and excellence and, crucially, aspiration and ambition. Already, there are promising signs that we are on track to deliver excellence. 2012 PISA data shows that Scotland performed above the OECD average for reading and science and that we outperformed a greater number of competitor countries than in 2012. PISA also showed that we narrowed the gap between the most and least disadvantaged pupils, the only UK country to do so. However, let me make clear the Scottish Survey of Literacy and Numeracy Results in 2014 on numeracy and the results this year on literacy certainly show that we need to step up the pace of change. That is why this Government has made it its key focus of our programme for government to close the attainment gap so that every child in every community gets every chance to succeed at school and in life. Therefore, we are investing £100 million through a national attainment fund over four years, targeting support at those authorities with the most deprived communities, providing schools and greater access to expertise and resources through the Scottish attainment challenge. Attainment advisers for every local authority area are currently being recruited and the raising attainment for all programme now has 23 local authorities and 180 schools committed to improving literacy, numeracy, health and wellbeing. Underpinning that will be new duties through the education bill to ensure that councils and ministers attach priority to the on-going challenges of inequalities of outcome. I trust that we can rely on Labour members for the support at all stages of this bill. I want to finish by offering reassurance to members that they should not doubt the passion or the sense of urgency that I and this Government have to address in this issue. We know we have more to do and we have to do it now. Every school, every education authority needs to take action and we will not rest until we see clear evidence that educational outcomes are improving for every child in Scotland. The spirit of consensus that has underpinned curriculum for excellence needs to be maintained and applied for that wider effort. We need to keep clear in our minds our key priorities to ensure that each and every child in Scotland is indeed on a personal journey to excellence. Thank you very much. Would you like to move the amendment? Many thanks. I now call on Mary Scanlon to speak to her and move amendment 13203.1. Ms Scanlon, six minutes please. We also welcome the Labour Party's debate on Scotland's economy and specifically on the essential skills, training qualifications and basic education required in order to ensure that people from all backgrounds and all ages in Scotland benefit from the opportunities to work and to start a business. I have to say I'm pleased to note that the Scottish Government, after eight years in office, now admits the drop in performance in both reading and writing. I think that this is a good starting point for the debate and I'm also pleased to hear, after eight years, that this has now become an urgent issue. In moving the amendment in my name, Presiding Officer, I'd like to quote from some emails received from parents and teachers regarding the reduction in subjects and their concern at limiting choices in hires and putting pupils in Scotland are a disadvantage. The first from a parent here in Edinburgh and I quote, we were told that the new curriculum for excellence would result in all schools going from eight standard grade equivalents to six. We were advised that this was the new way for all and that children would be given more time to devote to subjects and this would improve their grades. Then she discovered that this dictat was referred to as a consultation. When she spoke to other parents in Edinburgh, she discovered that parents of pupils at Burremure, Royal High, James Gillespie and others were still doing eight standard grade equivalents, not six. The teacher, again in Edinburgh, with the bright students who wanted to do chemistry and physics in S4, but they can't. Because of their other choices from the very restricted menu on offer, they can only do one science along with PE or retail. Now, there's nothing wrong with PE and retail. I have spoken out on retail opportunities many times in this Parliament, but I'm just trying to get into medical school with PE and retail hires. It's very difficult compared to a science. One pupil responded and I quote, you make us do subjects we don't want to do for an extra year and then you don't let us choose the subjects that we do want to do. Next year, the same school and the same teacher will be running a composite class national 4, national 5 and higher, bringing together physics, biology, crafting design and technology into one course. How often has it been stated in this Parliament the importance of science-based subjects and understanding? Now I come to the painstaking data from Dr Jim Scott. Another area of concern, the drastic reduction in attainment totals for levels 3 to 5. The fall in attainment at level 3 is 58 per cent last year compared to the year before. Level 4, 23 per cent fall in attainment, level 5 a 10 per cent fall, leading to an overall average of 20 per cent reduction last year compared to 2012-13. This is based on Dr Jim Scott's research, and I'm happy to hand it over to the Cabinet Secretary. As if this wasn't bad enough, the Scottish Government's opportunities for all guarantee—and I did read the 2011 manifesto before coming here—of a place in education or training. Why, given this guarantee of 29,016 to 19-year-olds not in education, employment or training? When looking at schools, the Government must ask what happens to the 66 per cent of pupils in P7 who perform well or very well in numeracy, and compare that to 42 per cent of S2 pupils who perform well or very well. What happens in two years at secondary school leads to a 24 per cent drop in numeracy standards. We also learned from Audit Scotland that there is no consistent approach to tracking and monitoring progress of pupils from P1 to S3. Although some councils test that P1, P3, P5, P7 and S2 others don't, the Cabinet Secretary last night said that they already have assessment tools and systems in place at schools, local and national levels, so why aren't they being used? Why do they need to be simplified before implemented? Yesterday at the Education and Skills Committee, we heard evidence from East Wren through council that they hold comprehensive data on attainment of all children through analysis of baseline standardised tests of P3, P5, P7 and S2, as well as SQA results. If East Wren Fresher schools can collect its information through testing to inform them about a child's development and support needs, why can't it be done in the rest of Scotland? Unfortunately, Wren cannot compare to any other schools because it is their tests and their tests alone. We have welcomed the attainment advisers and the 100 million investment over four years, but I was a bit surprised to read in Scotland on Sunday that they are circumvents for 12 months or 23 months, not for four years, and I would also maybe pass this to Stuart Stevenson because there is no salary on it, so they don't even know how much will be paid, presumably what they have already paid. Unless we know who needs the support to assist the attainment, unless we have accurate data, unless there is an evaluation, we don't know where the 100 million will go. I can see my time is almost up. Finally, colleges, 150,000 cuts in part-time places does not help attainment one bit, and the cuts to the over-25s whose lives have been transformed. I know that. I was a part-time student, I was over-25, I was a single parent with two children, I had all those opportunities before going to university. That door is well and truly closed for future, and that is much to be regretted and blamed entirely at the door of this Government. Thank you very much. No-con Willie Rennie, speak to and move amendment 13203.2. Mr Rennie, six minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move the amendment in my name. Across the United Kingdom, we have seen unemployment fall, we have seen hundreds of thousands of jobs being created, we have got wages, outstripping, inflation and growth rates in the United Kingdom that are vying with the United States of America, combined with big tax cuts for those on low and middle incomes. If we contrast that with what is happening in the recent set of statistics in Scotland, where the unemployment level has risen in Scotland, with in particular 5,000 women leaving employment, that contrast badly with the rest of the United Kingdom and within that context is a timely debate today. We need the Scottish Government to examine every aspect of their policy to get Scotland back on the path of falling unemployment, to ensure a prosperous economy and futures that allows individuals to fulfil their potential. I was quite disappointed with the minister's amendment and her tone today. The Scottish Government must begin to acknowledge the weaknesses in its own failings in order for us to make real progress. I have to say that the interventions from the backbenchers, her own backbenchers today, the only answer to this problem was more powers for this Parliament. No other ideas about education at all, only more powers, it is a stuck record and therefore they need to reflect on their eight years in power and eight years of failure. I welcome the Scottish attainment challenge and the funding through the attainment Scotland fund, but this Government has had eight years in which to tackle inequality of attainment and has failed to do so. The minister cannot now, with a great flourish of rhetoric, claim a new start. Children who started school in 2007 are now well established at secondary school. They do not get a second chance. The class of 2007 has witnessed this Government's failure, its failure to deliver its promises, to reduce primary class sizes in 1 to 3, its failure to improve the teacher-pupil ratios and its failure to improve standards in maths, science and literacy. Look just at the detail, some of the detail on this. The number of teachers has fallen by 4,275 since 2007. The average P1 to P3 class now stands at 23 pupils, far from the 18 that was promised back in 2007. The piece of maths scores has fallen in 2009, in fact, compared with 2012 as well. Results in the 2014 Scottish Survey of Literacy and Numeracy published recently shows performance in reading dropped in primary schools between 2012 and 2014, as well as in the second year of secondary school. The minister has to reflect seriously on that record. Rather than just claiming that it is a new start, she needs to take responsibility for the full eight years that her Government has been in charge. It is perhaps no surprise that, as a Liberal Democrat, our amendment has focused on the early years and the importance of that crucial period in an individual's life chances. There is a never-growing body of evidence about how the quality of early years provision can support a child's brain development and make a positive difference to their life chances and their future participation in our society. Effective early years education offers the foundations for a healthy all-round development. Studies such as the effective provision of preschool education provide strong evidence to show the impact of high-quality childcare and highly qualified staff on children's outcomes. We know from that work that better qualified staff teams offered high-quality support for children developing communication, language and literacy skills, and their reasoning, thinking and math skills, too. That is why we want more of Scotland's children to benefit from free nursery education. With provision in England outstripping that in Scotland, we cannot say that we are giving Scotland's children the start that they deserve. That is not only a concern for the individuals but also for our future economy. We are asking for our young people to play catch-up from the age of two in what is already a hugely competitive global economy. Let me be clear. I am not doubting, and there is no doubting, the potential of young people across Scotland. However, we must do more and we need to do more to unlock that talent, to ensure that every individual has the opportunity to fulfil their potential. That process of unlocking potential starts from a very early age. The Government must also look at its record of helping disadvantaged pupils and of the continued attainment gap. There is evidence that the pupil premium introduced by the last UK Government has had a positive impact in meeting its aims. An off-stead report highlighted how the funding was used by one school to support a pupil who became temporarily looked after in year 11 following a family trauma as her work began to suffer. The school bought in counselling and other emotional support, as well as an individualised programme of additional teaching, including daily math situation, extra English lessons and support in PE. It is that kind of individualised help and support that the pupil premium has allowed and which can truly turn around a young person's life. I hope that serious consideration will be given to similar funding approach in Scotland. That individualised approach—I am in my last minute—an American politician, Boris Mac, said nearly two centuries ago, that education beyond all other devices of human origin is the great equaliser of the conditions of men, the balance wheel of social machinery. Education is an enduring legacy of opportunity and the Government needs to step up to the mark. I am now moved to open debate. It is very tight for time today. Colin Kevin Stewart will be followed by Malcolm Chisholm up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First of all, I would like to look at the motion that has been tabled by the Labour Party today. It says in that motion that there are concerns of the new analysis published by Dr Jim Scott. In trying to get that analysis from SPICE, I managed to obtain this—one table. That is not analysis in my book. That was replaced by the same table today by the Labour Party at the back of the room. The only difference is that it is now in colour. If I am going to have to debate and analyse analysis by Dr Scott, I think that it would be wise that we could all catch sight of that analysis. What we have been told is that this was analysis that was conducted for the Labour Party. None of us have seen that. As you rightly said earlier on, that analysis is not easy to come by. I will take Mr Gray. Just to correct the member on a couple of factual errors. The first is that this is not analysis undertaken for the Labour Party. It is analysis undertaken by Dr Scott in his capacity as a research fellow. The data is the SQA data available publicly since last December. Mr Stewart, why then is that analysis available to some and not others? Mr Stewart, sit down. Thank you. Point of order, Hugh Henry. Can you clarify the rules of this Parliament that, when you call a member to speak, it would be you, as a Presiding Officer, who determines when that person finishes and that they are not shouted down by another speaker? I thank the member for his point of order. He is correct in raising that. However, we will now proceed with the debate. That analysis is not publicly available. We have not been able to catch sight of that analysis, and thereby it is very difficult to debate that analysis, I would argue. Presiding Officer, if I could move on, because other parts of the motion talk about introducing a 50p tax rate to pay for a number of things. I stand to be corrected, but at this moment in time this Parliament does not have the power to raise the top rate of tax to 50p. I wish that were the case, Presiding Officer, but that is one of the many powers that we still do not have. Beyond that, Presiding Officer, we heard an answer to a question by my colleague Stuart Stevenson. Ms Bailey said that she reckons that it would be £20,000 a year to employ a teaching assistant, and we think £30,000 for literacy teachers. I am quite sure that that does not include the whole employment cost of employing the folk that are mentioned in the motion. I have had enough from you, Mr Gray. I will move on. Once again, we have a flaw in the Labour Party motion. It is little wonder that the last Labour Government got itself into financial difficulties when they cannot even calculate these things properly, but there we go, no surprise there. Presiding Officer, I was shouted down earlier for mentioning welfare reform and its effect on people throughout this country. One of the things that I have come across on numerous occasions while I have been out and about is teachers and others saying that we do have a massive gap in attainment, which must be broached. However, we are not going to be able to do so while we still have kids going to school with empty bellies, because kids with empty bellies cannot learn. One of the major problems that we have is the fact that welfare reform is having a major impact on people right across this country. The Labour Party could have helped in dealing with some of the empty belly problems by voting for free school males earlier on in this Parliament. Of course, it voted against that. How progressive is that, I would ask myself. However, one of the key things that we need to do to tackle inequality, to broach that attainment gap and to create a fairer society is to create a much better social security system and to ensure that those folks who are in work are being paid properly, so that they can afford the things that they need in their day-to-day lives. Unfortunately, this is one of the things that the Labour Party and others in this place will not talk about. They will not talk about it because they do not want this Parliament to have those powers. I am quite sure that we would do a much better job than the current Tory Government and previous Westminster Governments who have failed in this issue. Now, I call on Malcolm Chisholm to be followed by Clare Adamson. I have two central economic facts that underline Labour's motion today. First, that education, especially quality education, is crucial for economic growth. Secondly, that inequality undermines economic growth. That is really unorthodoxy now that is accepted by the OECD, the IMF and the notable individual economists. Those two facts explain why the attainment gap is not just important and catastrophic for the individual lives of many people in Scotland today, but is also harming our economy. Twice over, first, by reducing the number of people with the level of education and skills that are needed to advance in the employment market. Secondly, of course, by exacerbating the inequality that hangers growth and Jackie Bailey quoted Joseph Stiglitz on that particular subject of the relationship between education and inequality. Anyone who doubts that particular analysis should look at a very short OECD video that I watched this morning. It is less than five minutes in length, but it is absolutely brilliant in encapsulating that central insight about inequality undermining economic growth. However, it also advocates something else that is quite interesting, because I think that we all accept that the OECD is not some kind of Marxist front, but they argue in that particular video and also in their other writings that, in fact, tax increases on the wealthiest are actually necessary to strengthen the economy, contrary to the neoliberal orthodox that we often hear about, and, of course, they are crucial for providing the educational and other opportunities for those who are most disadvantaged in our society. That is exactly what we are proposing in our motion today. Of course, Kevin Stewart is right that we have not quite got the ability in terms of this tax burden, but there is no doubt that we will have it soon. That is why it was a central proposal, obviously, in Labour's recent election manifesto, that we should use the money from the top-rate tax to employ teaching assistants, literacy teachers. I focussed on the most disadvantaged schools, as well as the commitment that Jackie Baillie reiterated to support the lowest 20 per cent performing pupils in literacy and numeracy wherever they happen to live. Kevin Stewart Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank Mr Chisholm for giving way. Mr Chisholm might have more knowledge than me. Does he have any idea when the Parliament is likely to get those tax-raising powers? At this moment in time, I have no clue about when we are likely to get those powers, if we do. I am very confident that they will be coming soon. I am not one, as members know, to bash the Scottish Government at every opportunity. However, there are some uncomfortable facts that they must face, and the SNP-backed ventures must face in this debate. I do not think that they can argue with the Scottish Survey of Literacy and Numeracy, which has been much referred to. The cabinet secretary accepted in our speech last night that there are alarming declines in the level of numeracy and literacy in Scotland. Those have to be addressed collectively by us all. Mary Scanlon made the interesting point that there was a particular decline from primary 7 to S2, so that might be something that we should focus on. I am a supporter of the curriculum for excellence, but there might have been a loss of focus on literacy and numeracy in the first two years of secondary school. The cabinet secretary last night was surprised at some of the approach to literacy and numeracy in S1 and S2. I was surprised, too, because when I started teaching in the 1970s, language across the curriculum was a central mantra, as well as being the title of a very important textbook. There may be lessons to be learned there, but, of course, the points that Jackie Baillie made about the wider issues of teacher numbers and class sizes are equally important. We have heard a lot about Dr Scott, but I think that that is an interesting table. Kevin Stewart made the first half of his speech, saying that there is not enough information there. I am sure that we would like more, but we have important information there. In two parts, there are a number of exams that students take in S4. I hear what the cabinet secretary says about that, and I can see what she is saying about that, but I still have a sort of concern about that, particularly if we are thinking of STEM subjects, which we all accept are so important for the economy. It might well be difficult—this came up in the science and schools debate earlier this year—if there is a declining number of science subjects being done because people cannot do physics and chemistry or whatever. I think that there are questions that we have to at least ask there about that, but there is also the uncomfortable fact about the attainment levels within that. Again, the most striking there that Ian Gray quoted was of those sitting 92 per cent passed in 12, 13 and 79 per cent in 13 and 14. That was just two years, but I think that we have to take those figures seriously and express a degree of concern about them. Having mentioned STEM subjects, I think that that is something that we need to focus on in colleges. We have lots of figures that we keep banding about colleges and it is well known what our concerns about those are, but one figure, particularly with reference to STEM and the effect of that on the economy, is that there were 86,000 places in STEM subjects in colleges eight years ago and the last year for which we have figures there was 56,000. Again, surely that gives some rise for concern. I heard what cabinet secretary Rosanna Cunningham said at question time about more courses that are leading to employment in colleges, but that does not seem to sit very comfortably with the decline in STEM subjects. I am exactly on six minutes. I did not have time to say what I wanted to say about early years, except that I agree that, in spite of all our talk about schools and colleges, perhaps the most important investment for all sorts of things, including economic growth, is investment in the early years. Many thanks. I now call Claire Adamson to be followed by Graham Pearson, and we are tight for time. Thank you, Presiding Officer. At the start of this debate—indeed, for possibly the first four minutes of Jackie Baillie's speech today—I thought that we were going to get some consensus about the devastating effect of inequality and the challenges ahead and come together on how we could do that. I am a bit sorry that the debate has taken a different direction in that area. The first issue that I have to raise is about the Dr Scott research that has been referenced. I have in front of me an email from Spice yesterday. It says that the research was carried out for the Labour Party, and the full document is not publicly available or published online. The party has, yesterday, provided the below table to Spice, which summarises the finding of Dr Scott and which can be shared by Spice with inquiries. I am unclear as to who did the summary, whether that is Dr Scott's analysis or the Labour Party's. I answer that question. The table is from Dr Scott's research. I can also say in all sincerity to the member that Spice is wrong. We did not tell them that the research was done for us, and I can only assume that they have made a mistake. I hope that the member will appreciate that this is what has led to some of the confusions and these benches as to this report. From the table in front of me, I am concerned that there does not seem to be any waiting for falling school roles between the two years in connection. I also agree with the cabinet secretary that, when taking out of context of the evidence to the education committee of knowing that pupils—the number of subjects being studied by pupils this year was going to fall because that was the intention of curriculum for excellence—there is some confusion in just using the raw data. Jackie Baillie That the overall number of people taking these exams has fallen, and I do not necessarily accept that, but let us put that to one side. How can you explain the percentage drop in attainment, because that is not about the respective numbers. That is about an overall fall in attainment, despite who is sitting in the exam. I think that we have to look at this in the context of this. This was the second year of the fifth year exams, and we do not have all the information in front of us, and we do not have the full detail of the research, which is why it is very difficult for us to comment on it. However, I do not think that this Government or anyone else will take any indication of a fall in attainment lightly. I think that the cabinet secretary has shown that the higher levels are showing a continued increase and that we are doing year on year better than we have in this area. We have the debate today, and I just have to raise those issues. I have taken enough intervention, sorry. Jamie Livingstone, the head of Oxfam Scotland, in today's press, has looked at the research that Oxfam did that shows that UK five families have roughly the same wealth as at least 12 million people in Britain put together. Oxfam states that they are non-political, but they also have a clear and unequivocal stand against such glaring inequality and an issue that they believe inextricably leads to poverty. When it comes to tackling poverty and inequality, Oxfam says that that includes action to ensure that we have a just tax system for which everyone pays their fair share and everyone according to their means. I think that there is a degree of consensus that the tax system needs to change to achieve that. It is just unfortunate that we do not have the power to do it within this Parliament at this time. Oxfam also quotes the latest figure, showing that 820,000 people live in poverty in Scotland and more than half of the working age adults in poverty live in households, but at least one person is working. The old adage that work is the clearest route out of poverty is hollow, brings hollow and is no longer relevant to the situation that we find within a work poverty today. The welfare reform committee has taken frequent evidence on the fact that increased food bank use of the sanction system and the effects that it has on families relying on social security. We have seen that poverty is increasing as a result of the sterity agenda of the Westminster Government. Mary Scanlon was very passionate about the numbers and figures, but she forgets that in that are the children that are suffering under her Government's austerity regime. When we get the Westminster Secretary of State for Work and Pensions stating us regard further cuts coming our way, we would have to do the work on it as we have done the work and it is not modelled and we will let everybody know what that is. So £12 million of cuts are coming with no concaidons of what the welfare budget needs to be, no reason other than austerity ideology and no regard for the devastating impact on families who rely on social security, no regard to quality impact assessments or any sense of fairness or need in the Government's agenda. I just want to finish a verdict for time, Presiding Officer, but if I could reference the Science and Engineering advisory group CAC report and the work that they did in STEM subjects in the country, and they highlight that even a relatively small improvement in education standards can have large impacts on the economic, social and cultural wellbeing of nations and may offset, perhaps, exceed the cost of effective educational reform. I believe that this Government, working with partners such as CAC, is moving towards that. If I can finally say that I know that this is happening because I attended on 26 and 27 March a learning festival in North Lanarkshire, which was opened by Dr Alasdair Allan. We are looking at creative learning, an opportunity for all teachers to learn more about what is there to help them in their challenges in tackling the attainment gap. Thank you very much. Graham Pearson, to be followed by John Mason. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise to support Jackie Baillie's motion and contribute to today's debate. One can understand why Government would want to focus on all the plus points in our education system. There is no doubt that we are gifted, indeed, with the professionalism of our teachers and those who support them in education day and daily in dealing with the pupils and students in our schools. However, as Willie Rennie touched on, we need to look at the reality of what happens in our schools today and every day during the time of the eight years of this Government. It is about pupils. It is about one chance in life, a chance that is given by education to move out of deprivation and poverty. The cabinet secretary was right to acknowledge last night her concerns about literacy, and I would add to that concerns about numeracy too. She made some comments that are alluding to some teachers' impacts and their understanding of that challenge. Those criticisms or those observations that she made last night were picked up by some as a criticism of the profession. Thereby stands the heat that lies at the centre of our debate. Too often we are diverted from the key issues that we are trying to understand. Education is particularly important not only to our economy and what it adds to our ability to participate and compete in this world, but it is of particular significance to those who come from poor areas and those who face deprivation of opportunity. For those who live there, education provides one of the only chances to escape poverty. This week, in the daily record, Joanne Martin from Puzzle Park reported that she had succeeded in achieving grades that should have allowed her to pursue a career medicine, only to find that that chosen career path was being frustrated in her belief because of the social strata that she came from and the family support that she received—great support from her mum, who was a part-time cleaner. Her view was supported by Vonnie Sandlin, the president-elect of the NUS in Scotland. When we look at that position, we discover from the facts that fewer than one person in three leaves school with at least one hire from schools located in the most deprived 10 per cent of the areas in Scotland. At the same time, four out of every five pupils leave with at least one hire in the most affluent parts of Scotland. In a Government that seems committed to social justice and equality, those statistics are difficult to face. Dr Jim Scott of the University of Edinburgh shows that the number of candidates that are gaining level 3 and 5 qualifications at SCQFs, the replacement for standard grades, has dropped by 20 per cent. That is a challenge to any Government that seeks to deliver equality of opportunity. Standards in literacy and numeracy in Scotland schools have fallen. I am glad to take the intervention. Thank you, Mr Pearson. I just want to be clear that the number of people achieving qualifications at levels 3 and 5 did not fall by 20 per cent. It fell by around 6 per cent. The mistake that Labour keeps making is that it is talking about people, as in candidates, as opposed to the number of qualifications. It cannot compare apples with pears. Typically, there were two entries for standard grades at credit and general 11, where it was level 3 to 5. I hear what the cabinet secretary says, and it is one thing to be mused by statistics, but the reality is out there to be faced and is reported every day in our schools. College admissions have fallen by 37 per cent or some 140,000 places since the SNP came to power. That pathway to leave deprivation and poverty is being choked off by the decisions taken by the Government in this country under the power that is available to them now. At the same time, they are spending £7.599 billion from budget to deliver for our children. If the SNP Government is truly committed to delivering in this respect, it should pay attention to Dr Jim Scott's opinions in this matter. He is a respected academic. He reported to committee earlier this year. If I can finish the sentence, having spoken to Dr Scott at a committee meeting, he informed me that his report was submitted to officials of the Government earlier this year, and that he supported the contents in that report. It was interesting to me particularly because at the meeting that I attended, the cabinet secretary on that occasion, not the present one, reported the successes that have been achieved in relation to modern language teaching in our Scottish schools. Dr Scott reported exactly the opposite facts from the statistic that he had gathered in his report. I would beg that the cabinet secretary connect with reality and give us the opportunity to see improvements in those accesses to education that are offered to those in deprived areas and those from poor circumstances. Thank you. John Mason to be followed by Mark Reitzawnold. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Firstly, I say that I am happy to welcome this debate on education as it appears in the motion, although I have to say that the title The Future of Scotland's Economy was just somewhat misleading. Clearly, the link between education and the economy is very strong, but it would have been helpful if Labour had said that when they decided on the title of the motion. I do accept that Labour has been in somewhat of a muddle recently. One of the SNP's flagship policies has been free university education, and it is fascinating that universities are not mentioned in Labour's motion. Does Labour look down on academic achievement and the universities? Is Labour wanting to move resources from universities to schools and colleges? They would be perfectly entitled to call for that if they want to, but to call for more emphasis in one area without stating that there should be less emphasis in another area does strike me as somewhat less than transparent. Of course, in colleges as in other areas, we would all like to see more money available, but I would not want to see a return to the previous arrangements where it became purely a numbers game and students, including some with learning disabilities, were parked in courses that were really of no use to them. However, there is also a question on how the colleges are run, as well as how much money they get. The situation in Glasgow has been concerning me for some time, with the apparent turmoil both at Clyde College, with the change of principle, and with the overall Glasgow Colleges regional board. I believe that one of the key ways of reducing inequality in Scottish society is strong and effective colleges, and the six community-based colleges in Glasgow, which are now merged into two, Kelvin and Clyde, have had a fair degree of success in that respect. I wonder if the cabinet secretary can give us any assurance later on concerning both Clyde College and the regional board. That money will not be wasted with expensive bureaucracy and duplication, but it will be channeled into front-line education and the regional board will be able to handle that. Does the member believe that more people are moving into further education and more staff are in further education now than there were prior to this Government's reforms? John Mason? I believe that, because the budget has been cut for this Parliament, virtually all sections, apart from the health service, have had to be reduced. That is the reality. This week is also Scottish apprenticeship week, and I myself was out in Ballaston with some GHA modern apprentices on Monday. That reminded me again that we need to find the right role and the right employment for each and every individual. I think that there has been too much emphasis on academic results in schools in the past, and we have seen some improvement moving away from that in recent years. There is still an overemphasis in my opinion on exam results, which are relatively easy to measure, compared to value added by a school that is much harder to measure. I do agree with the Labour motion when it mentions the STEM subject, science, technology, engineering and mathematics. That is particularly the case for girls and women. As we found an equal opportunities committee when we carried out our inquiry into women and work, in practice there is still a tendency for men and women to enter traditional career paths, and it is not just money that will change that. However, very little detail from Labour as to what we can do or should be done to get more people into STEM. My own feeling that there is a strong emphasis on STEM in both Government and Parliament, but we are not seeing that worked out in practice at the grassroots. When I had a school visit here from one of my local secondaries recently, none of the pupils, boys or girls were considering engineering. Why was that? Are the schools pressing too much for arts and similar academic subjects rather than more practical and technical subjects? Do we need the schools to emphasise more to pupils where the future jobs are likely to be? How do we change the attitudes in society to value something like engineering more highly? How do we help young people lacking self-confidence and vision? Perhaps no-one in their family has been at college or university before. Although I accept that school resources are a key element of that, this kind of question about attitudes is not just about money. While we are thinking of attitudes, the attitude to self-employment is another challenge. Many of us when we were at school did not seriously consider setting up our own business but assumed that academic achievement and being employed was the way ahead. Yet, some of our most successful business people do not have fabulous academic records and often took qualifications later in life or, in some cases, not at all. So the concept of linking the economy and education as in today's debate is an important link but I do not think that it is the be all and end all. Again, I am reminded that we need to find the best outcome for each individual young person and not take too simplistic an approach counting what is easily measured. With my finance hat on, we have to live within our means and that means largely the block grant at the moment. Cuts from Westminster, as I have said, have led to cuts in most areas of the Scottish budget, so that is hardly a shock to anyone here. I personally am very open to a 50p higher rate of income tax and ideally we should combine that with national insurance. Even with a 50p income rate tax, the 2p national insurance makes the combined rate of 52 less progressive and I would like us to look at a combined rate of perhaps 60p. But when is the 50p rate to be available, as my colleague Mr Stewart already said? Will it be when this Parliament gets the power in income tax or will it be when Labour gets into power at Westminster? Either way, we seem to be waiting for quite a long time. The figure that we have estimated for what we would get from 50p rate of tax is an extra £13 million and I am not sure that quite meets what Labour is hoping for in that motion. In conclusion, the economy and education are two very important topics, but I think that the challenges facing us in both areas are slightly more complex than Labour seems to suggest. I think that what we have here today is a debate. Jackie Baillie, in her speech, spent a large part of the first section of her speech talking about things that did not appear in the Labour Party's motion around some of the economic areas of policy and then got into the substance of what the Labour Party wants to debate. Mr Mason is quite right that the information that SPICE have provided suggests that £13 million is what would be achieved by the levelling of a 50p top rate of income tax in Scotland. It does not meet, at the very first instance, the £25 million that Labour would use via a 50p top rate. Even beyond that, if we look at the numbers of staff that are talked about in the motion for being employed, there is also a question as to whether or not the sums add up in that respect, for a £13 million of that is what you raised, but even beyond that to a £25 million, if you were to include on-costs as well. I think that the debate essentially, the centrifugal point of this debate, is the inequality agenda and how best to tackle that. I do not dispute that the notion that education is a means by which people can escape the trapping effect of inequality. That, I think, is well understood. However, what you are talking about there is a situation in which you are essentially doing something in spite of an individual's circumstances, rather than materially changing them to improve their outcomes as a consequence. If what you are saying is that we need to focus our efforts into those areas and work against the external factors that are affecting children's educational outcomes, I agree that that is something that we have to do, and based on the evidence at the moment, it is something that the cabinet secretary herself has said that she wishes to do. However, you also have to look at how you address those external factors that are impacting on those children, on those families, on those communities. Although we want absolutely to have those children get the best possible educational outcomes, we also want to ensure that the lifestyles that exist around those children are materially improved. It cannot simply be the case—perhaps a little bit, but I just want to develop the point a little bit further, Mr Giffen. It cannot simply be the case that we say that we will work to help those children to escape the situations in which they find themselves as a result of the inequalities that exist within society, and that will therefore resolve those inequalities. There are adults, there are family networks, there are communities that are affected by those deep inequalities that simply working through the education system alone will not resolve, so it goes wider than that. Before I move on to the wider section, I will take Mr Giffen's intervention. Thank you, Mr McDonnell. I take his point on the wider issues affecting poverty, but does he not agree that by focusing resources in that area that we start to break people out of that vicious cycle of poverty and education in itself is a way to tackle poverty, not overnight but on a generational basis? No disagreement from me on that. I made that point earlier on in my speech. I represent a constituency that has poverty amidst plenty. My constituency office is based in one of the most deprived communities in the city of Aberdeen, but, in my constituency, I have communities that have less than 5 per cent child poverty rates, so I recognise the need to ensure that resources are focused on those areas that need intervention. That brings me on to the other aspect of this when we are looking at the inequality agenda. It is about the economy, it is about employment, it is about creating the circumstances whereby individuals in those communities can access well-paid, sustainable employment. That is what brought me to the intervention that I raised with Jackie Baillie. I am not one of those folk who sees the debate simply being, more powers is the answer to everything, but, at the same time, you have to look at where the powers rest that can best tackle the societal inequalities that face those communities. Education, I agree absolutely, and I have said already that focusing on education is something that we need to do. The cabinet secretary has made that point very clearly. Beyond that, as well, we have to then look at how we affect the material circumstances of individuals in those communities. How do we make people's incomes better? How do we make people's employment better? One of the ways that we do that is through wage policy, is through employment policy, is through being able to take the measures to tackle things like, for example, exploitative zero-hours contracts, like being able to take steps around minimum wage policy and addressing that in a wider context than simply looking at a living wage that is narrowly defined to the public sector because that is the only way that we can implement it at present. Until we are able to take that basket of measures forward, that is something that will hamstring some of the efforts. Teachers are doing a fantastic job in our communities, particularly in our deprived communities, but when a child arrives at the school gate with an empty belly because of the fact that their family has to rely on food banks, or when they are affected by circumstances outside of that classroom, the school is only ever going to be working in a situation where it is battling against external factors not being able to develop that child's full potential. I agree absolutely focus on education, but we have to have a wider focus than simply education, otherwise those children and those schools will continue to be battling against external factors and not working to the best possible outcomes for the child. Thanks very much, Presiding Officer. We all know that the future of our economy is crucial to the future of our people and the cohesiveness of our society. In many ways Scotland's economy is successful, especially when we compare it to other less prosperous nations across the world, but our economy has a massive and glaring fault line running through it, and that is the unequal distribution of the gains of our economic success and the poverty that many people have mentioned. Low pay and job insecurity are at the heart of our country's problems. On Monday night, the excellent DBC Scotland Investigates documentary explores the crushing, debilitating and grinding impact of low pay on people and their families. It shows how it saps morale and impacts on every aspect of family life. People are unable to pay energy bills, people left staring at the unempty fridge, children going without the very basics. That is the harsh reality, not just of a few people but of one in five Scots, and I am ashamed to say that it is happening in my street, in my village, my region and just yards from this building. People are crying out for action, they need our help now, and we have a moral responsibility to do something about it, not next month, next year, at some time in the future when we gain additional powers and the Government of the day may or may not use those additional powers, we need action now. We cannot continue to blame someone else or hide behind someone else's inactions or inactions. Appalling as it is, that does not feed another child. Let us take our jobs seriously and think about how we can affect change and do it quickly and do it now. We know that the Government did not embrace radical change last year when the procurement bill was going through this Parliament, but I hope that the Government recognises that that was a mistake and that we can and should revisit that now. I wonder whether the member has read section H1 in schedule 5 of the 1998 Scotland Act, which reserves the 1996 Employment Rights Act to Westminster and therefore deprives us of the power to legislate for what people have paid in this place. I absolutely agree that we should do it and we would make common cause in doing the same thing, but does he take a legal point? As a matter of fact, I was just reading it five minutes ago, and I cannot help but recognise the glee with which Mr Stevenson tells us that we cannot do anything. That is the problem, Mr Stevenson. We should be doing what we can to help people now, not gleefully telling us what we cannot do. We should go back to the EU and ask a different question on procurement and the living wage. I suggest that we ask how we can use public procurement to extend the coverage of the living wage. We should look at how the Government pays out grants through regional selective assistance and other subsidies, money going to companies, charities, agencies and all the rest. It should have criteria and conditionality on paying conditions as part of the grant awarding process. We should ensure inward investors like Amazon, who we paid £10 million to locate in Fife, pay fair wages and offer decent conditions as part of the grant award. We should look at the small business bonus and have differential rates for those who pay the living wage and meet other fair employment criteria. We should look at the charitable and social enterprise sector and urge them to lead the way and be exemplars in their employment practices. I know that many of them do, but not all of them. We could, if we had to, well bring all the parties together to tackle this matter head on co-operatively alongside trade unions and civic society, or we can sit back and point the finger and say that it is not my or it is not our fault. I hope that the Government will set aside its past approach and move on and show that this Parliament we can put aside political differences to act quickly. I will tell you that I am up for that, but I just wonder if the Government is. The Labour motion focuses on the important issue of education. On educational attainment and on college policy, the record of this Government could be described as poor at best and offensive at worst. We have witnessed a drop and young people gaining level 3 to 5 qualifications, as has been mentioned. The cabinet secretary jumped up to tell us that it is not 20 per cent reduction, it is 6 per cent. Forgive me for not offering you congratulations and a round of applause on your performance, cabinet secretary. Two and a half thousand college jobs gone, 130,000 places lost and, once against the poorest communities, suffering most are being failed again by a lack of focus on those who have not enjoyed their share of this country's wealth. Whilst new policies such as the attainment challenge and the like are welcomed, there is a drop in the ocean when we see this against the backdrop of the savage cuts to local government. West Lothian Council, covering the constituency of the cabinet secretary, has had an £88 million cut in its budget. In order to meet the Government's demand on teacher numbers, the council needs 42 more teachers. Funding from the Scottish Government will deliver how many? Nine. Nine for their teachers' budgets from other services that have been cut will have to be cut again and again. That is repeated across budgets and local authorities across the country, yet the cabinet secretary seeks to blame teachers. It is everybody else's fault, it is anybody's fault, not hers and not the Government that she has been part of for the past eight years. We cannot go on like this. The cohesiveness of our society will be determined by driving up incomes and education as a key ingredient. We can either work together to do that or we can stand and point the finger, blame someone else, anybody else. Thank you, and I call Chick Brody to be followed by Joan McAlpine. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am somewhat bemused by the debate today in its selection, as penned in the last paragraph, saying that its selection of education is both key to addressing inequality in our society and the crucial investment in our economy. Of course, it is, as Mark McDonald elusively pointed out, but one key, albeit very important, to addressing both issues. My bemusement is largely caused by the motion's call for an impact assessment of the attainment gap in Scotland's schools. The education committee is doing that very thing at this moment. I have to say, with very significant input from its two Labour members and, indeed, from Mrs Scanlon, the route to closing the attainment gap by that, by our committee considers and will consider the need for improvement in increased skills and achievement, and thus the economy. Apart from money, we will also consider all of the other things that contribute to investment and assessment, the roles of parents, teachers, associated organisations, local authorities and so on. At its heart, I believe, is fairness, as we are tackling inequality as part of it and supporting equality of access as a priority to education. It is a hurdle to be overcome in the education field, as we plan for ever-great and greater sustainable economic and environmental growth. However, there are other issues that impact that. In that one context, the motion rightly speaks of education as one key element in the future economy of Scotland. However, the motion elsewhere goes astray. It references the OECD report by having it here. It makes no mention of Scotland. However, it highlights, as the motion should have recognised, that the ever-increasing disparity in equality is one of the UK's making over the past 30 years. If you doubt me, read the full OECD report, or, more importantly, read Joseph Stiglett's very informative book, The Price of Inequality. Education attainment and our economy has been at the mercy of that lemming-like philosophy of financial greed that is pursued by UK Governments over that period of time. A rising income inequality amid two recessions, which in the latter one have incurred Scotland's ability, despite what Mr Finlay said. I don't know where we are going to print all this money, the Carb Scottish budgets from the UK. Income equality rising by three genie points has dragged down economic growth by 0.35 per cent per year for not just the last seven years, but the last 25 years. Given the economic cycle drag for some time before that, between 1990 and 2010, economic growth could have been at 9 per cent points higher if income levels had been held at steady at the 1985 level. From that growth would have flown more revenue and the ability to spend more if the Government so willed on things such as education and reducing the inequality gap. To help you again, 1985 is 23 years before this Government came to power. The excessive UK Governments have not only run finances into the ground but have done the same because they had put consumption before investment in our skills, productivity and in our children. There is no evidence anywhere of tackling inequality, unfairness and injustice that sees the UK now with the fourth highest level of income inequality in the OECD countries. Scotland's budget, I repeat, has suffered as a consequence. There is absolutely no point, and I welcome the comment from Neil Finlay at the end about talking and working together, but there is no point in Labour coming here, weeping crocodile tears, having hitched their wagon to that lot in the referendum campaign last year. If we are to address— Mr Brodie, I have a point of order. Before I take the point of order, I was about to speak to you about unparliamentary language. I understand that we are expected to talk to colleagues in a courteous manner. I do not think that referring to us as that lot is courteous in any way. May I ask through your officers that they remember to apologise and to retract that statement? Members should be cuties to each other under the standing orders. They should also address their remarks through the chair, and they should not speak well. Mr Brodie, please resume. Of course I accept and will apologise, but having made the point, the point is now made. If we are to address to manage not just poverty, which is absolutely critical, but also address lower incomes, redistribution of wealth through a unified tax and benefit system, we can fully further expand attainment, personal development and skills, allied to vocational and academic aspirations. That can only come eventually with full financial responsibility. We have to acknowledge and recognise our place, indeed our elevation in the global education galaxy, but we are still recognised as a core of education skills. Against that, we could sit here and swap conflicting numbers, as we apparently wish to do, but what we need to do is to get behind our excellent teachers, our college lecturers, our parents and the pupils themselves to focus on the changes and the challenges that we are now supporting and producing the funds such as the attainment challenge fund and the school improvement partnerships, etc. We have to work together to make the change and the challenges that we currently face, so let's do that. Jackie Baillie's motion highlights OECD research published in December last year that found income inequality has a negative and statistically significant effect on medium-term economic growth. That same analysis tells us that the genetic coefficient for the OECD has increased from 0.29 in the 1980s to 0.32 in 2012, so inequality is a growing problem right across Western developed societies. It is particularly a problem in the UK, the United Kingdom, the Union, which Jackie Baillie and her Conservative partners and Better Together campaigned so vigorously for Scotland to retain, saying that we were better together. Indeed, as part of the Smith commission, Labour continued to repeat that mistake and dug its heels in to prevent a transfer to Scotland of the powers that would allow us to reduce inequality in our society, most notably in terms of the minimum wage and welfare. Perhaps it will now consider the folly of that position in the light of the general election result, when the people of Scotland told them exactly what they thought of Scottish Labour and their position. I understand the member's argument that it is a cyclical one that she makes constantly, but can I just point her to Joseph Stiglitz and his view that inequality, one of the three determinants of inequality that actually provides a solution, is education. That is wholly devolved. What is her Government in the last eight years done to tackle inequality? I am very glad that she mentioned Professor Stiglitz. If she is a real admirer of Stiglitz, she may have heard him on Radio 4's start this week, when he praised the Scottish Government's record on education as the means of reducing inequality and spoke at some length about how the Scottish Government was pursuing social democratic policies that were absent in the rest of the UK. He certainly did not stint in his praise of the Scottish Government with regard to education. Only this week, the European Union research told us that the UK was the most unequal country in Europe. Professor Stiglitz has already heard the world's foremost authority. He has made it very clear what he thinks of the UK, particularly following the American model of higher education, which has entrenched and driven inequality, not just in the US and the societies that have followed that model. I would be interested to know what Professor Stiglitz thought of the UK Labour Party going into the last general election, arguing that students in England and Wales should pay £6,000 a year in tuition fees for university. He certainly would not approve of that and certainly compares very poorly with our record in Scotland, which is second to none in Europe. I wonder whether he would approve of cuts to burst into the poorest students in Scotland in comparison with the SNI kingdom, the poorest support for students across the United Kingdom, and the highest drop-out rates. I would have thought that anyone who was committed to equality in education would at least look at those statistics and think about what we could do now to make a difference to everyone else. The National Union of Students has praised the package on offer by the Scottish Government for students as the best in the UK. Research by the National Union of Students shows that participation in higher education decreases by 4.4 per cent for every £1,000 increase in fees. I add up the cost of Labour's £6,000 a year university fees. Given that we are debating Labour business today, it is perhaps worth noting that Labour voted against the Post-16 Education Act, which put into law for the first time a requirement for universities to widen access for students from poorer backgrounds. At that time, Labour refused to listen to people such as the National Union of Students in Scotland and John Henderson, chief executive of Scotland's colleges, and Professor Sir Timothy O'Shea, the principal member of the university, who praised the bill that Labour inexplicably voted against. I have already taken two interventions. My colleague Kevin Stewart talked passionately about the effects of welfare reform and social inequality. That has been self-evident for some weeks. We have been taking evidence in the welfare reform committee on the effect of austerity on families. It was very notable a few weeks ago that we took evidence from social work chiefs that talked about the effect on families and how the number of children at risk and the number of children being taken into care was rising as a result of welfare cuts. We know from Sheffield Hallam's university research that those welfare cuts impact most directly on couples with children and single parents with children. It follows that if the sharp end that is happening, of course attainment is going to be affected by a rise in austerity. The Labour Party did very little to counter in the last general election by supporting £30 billion worth of cuts over the next few years, which could only make the situation worse. I will finish off by quoting the name of the day, Professor Joe Stiglis. Order, please. Members are closing. Professor Joe Stiglis, who, in the price of equality, said that the fact should not get in the way of a pleasant fantasy—I think that that is a lesson for the Labour Party—should not the fact of their own record in supporting Tory austerity and get away from the pleasant fantasy that the SNP is responsible for everything. Order, please. Mark Griffin, to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. Addressing the attainment gap in our society is our top priority. It is the right thing to do to break down the barriers that those in the poorest communities face, but not just because it is the right thing to do, because it makes sense economically. We welcome the Scottish Government's recently announced plan to try and tackle it after eight years in office. Educational inequality is a symptom of a deeper problem of poverty, which we need to address, and so the focused nature of any programme is vital. I have used this example before, but 11 common old in the variation in educational attainment across the town is massive. In common old north, the level of child poverty is 8 per cent, which is far too high, but when you walk across the footbridge across the M80 into common old south, a two-minute walk, child poverty travels almost to a staggering 23 per cent. As I have said, the difference in child poverty impacts on the educational attainment of young people, which can stop them breaking out of that vicious cycle of poverty. The measures that we agree to tackle attainment must be focused on our most deprived communities as a result. With that in mind, Scottish Labour would use the additional revenues from a new 50p tax rate, redistributing resources from those who can afford it to those who need it most, to invest an additional £25 million per year over and above the Government's proposal to tackle educational disadvantage. We would double the number of teaching assistants in every primary school associated with the 20 secondary schools facing the greatest challenges of deprivation. We would introduce a new literacy programme for schools in recruit and train literacy specialists to support pupils in the associated primary schools and first and secondary pupils in each of those 20 secondary schools. We would also offer support to parents so that they can learn with their children and we will introduce a special literacy support programme for looked after children. We would also ask Education Scotland to carry out an annual review on progress in tackling educational inequality in Scotland schools through the schools inspectorate programme. That would include a specific report on looked after children, and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning would also report to Parliament on the progress being made annually on reducing the attainment gap to allow the progress to be monitored and scrutinised by us in Parliament. There are also other issues related to poverty and inequality that are impacting on educational attainment, such as the increase in the use of private tutors and the use of placing requests. There has been a 300 per cent increase in the use of private tutors in the last year alone, and welfare families have the ability to give their children an extra boost compared to children and families who cannot afford private tuition. That can be used when a child is struggling in a particular area or to help in the run-up to exams and in itself is not a bad thing, but where is the support for the pupil from the poorer background when they are struggling or need that support during exam time? We have supported provision of high-quality wraparound care for primary school pupils, such as the provision of breakfast clubs and homework clubs to give pupils a productive start and end to the day, while suiting the needs and requirements of working parents. That would give all pupils, regardless of their family income, that extra support and learning. Supported study sessions are often running schools and evening exam times to support pupils, but that is offered by committed, motivated teachers who offer up their own time to support their pupils. That is an excellent way of supporting pupils at exam time, but it is patchy across the country and across subjects. There is an issue of transport costs for pupils who normally get the school bus home, which again impacts disproportionately on families with lower incomes. The placing request also creates a two-tier system of education and is causing problems for education authorities in managing school staff and the school estate. As soon as a particular school starts to get a reputation or perception amongst parents of slipping or failing or another school starts getting a better reputation, parents with the means to pay for transport will use the placing request system to move their children out of the catchment area to another school. We are then left with a situation in some schools, but only the children from the poorest family in the area attend and the impact that that has on attainment levels is clear to see. I am glad that the Government is making educational attainment a priority after eight years in Government. I hope that it will look at some of the areas that we have spoken about today and that it can start by improving its own plans, by redistributing wealth and increasing the resources that are available to families in our poorest communities. Many thanks. The last open debate is Stewart Stevenson. No more than six minutes, please, Mr Stevenson. Let me just posit an approach to how we might deal with the issue that is before us. We should describe the problem. We should obtain the information about it. We should extract data that is meaningful. We should normalise the data across the timeline that it spreads. From that, we should identify solutions. We should then compare the identified solutions with each other and select solutions that we take forward, find a finance and implement, and then we should start again, because it is unlikely that one time round the loop will solve the problem. One of the things that comes out of the debate is that, in our describing the solutions, there is comparatively little difference between us across the chamber. We accept that there is a challenge before us and that this challenge will be one that will endure over the long term but which we must make some progress with. Obtaining information—I think that we are not doing quite so well there—we have a table from Dr Jim Scott's research, but there is no context. How many times in the last eight years that finding data and interrogating it and finding solutions has already been done? The point is not to diss the evidence that somebody has presented but to accept that there is a problem and whether we are spending the money on the right things or not. I am concerned that it seems particularly the back benches rather than the Cabinet Secretary who wants to close down a debate, have an argument about the evidence, rather than agreeing that there is a problem and coming to agreement with what the solutions might be. It would be helpful if the member actually listened to what I had said, Presiding Officer, because I acknowledged the challenge that is before us and I do so again for the hard of heeding if there are any who are described or present now. To return to Dr Scott's such extract from the data as there is, in and of itself it tells me almost nothing. The reason it tells me nothing is because it fails a number of the tests that I have described. It is data that I accept that, it has a timeline. I have no knowledge of what normalisation has been done between the different parts of the timeline so that it is proper to compare one year to another. I will make a little progress, but I will come back. I also have no information about the sources of each element of data that is on this single sheet of paper. One moment, please. An academic paper would normally have that information. I expect that the whole paper probably does. I just said gently to my colleagues on the left of the chamber that it would generally be helpful to their cause and to good debate if we had had the whole paper. Forgive me, but I will take Mr Finlay first. It is abundantly clear that neither Dr Scott nor anyone else in the chamber is on the same intellectual wavelength as Mr Stevenson, but that comes as no surprise to any of us. So, maybe he could tell us in his wisdom what the problems are in Scottish education, because we will all sit here absolutely wrapped at his intelligence. I am conscious of the fact of six minutes, but I also, while accepting plaudits, which are entirely due to the genetic inheritance from my parents, perhaps more than my own efforts, that the real point that we all have to engage in—let's make common cause about getting the whole picture in front of us so that we can pick out the bits and start to agree the bits that we want to prioritise. The Labour Party's motion before us moves to solutions. For example, it talks about tenulatory teachers and doubling the number of teaching assistants in associated primary schools for 20 schools facing the greatest challenge. I cannot possibly rebut that as a proposal, because I do not have any of the workings as to how we have arrived at that as the magic bullet. By the way, it might be the correct answer. I do not reject it because it has come from the bench's opposite, but neither can I accept it because I have no workings, so I do not know what the axioms on which it was based, I do not know what the inbuilt assumptions, I do not know even what the policy objectives in any detail were. However, let me also turn to the underlying numbers behind the Labour Party's proposal. In an earlier part of the debate, I simply asked how much a teaching assistant would cost to employ and how much a literacy teacher. I got a fairly definite 20,000 for the former, a less certain response on the latter. Yes, I will. Thank you. Perhaps Mr Stevenson will excuse the memory of an older man. The correct figures are 36,705 pounds for the literacy specialist, 14,880 pounds for a teaching assistant, and that includes any impension payment. Can I say that that is excellent? We will go away and I will certainly have a look at it, I am sure that colleagues will equally do it, but it would, and I say gently, it would be helpful to have this sort of thing before the debate, rather than when the last backbend speaker, and I did ask for it early in the debate. Now, Presiding Officer, I am in my last 45 seconds. Just let me illustrate how numbers can mislead. There is an article in the Financial Times today saying that productivity in the UK is falling and that that is a good thing. The reason is that it is filling some of the relatively low-skilled jobs that have been difficult to fill in places like London. That is helping the overall economy, even though productivity is going down because those jobs are being filled. An example of how numbers can confuse without explanation and discussion. Let's have it, please. Thank you. We now turn to closing speeches. The Colin Willie Rennie, maximum six minutes please, Mr Rennie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I was intrigued by Stuart Stevenson's remarks. He talked about finding common cause across the chamber to get the whole picture. Well, this Government has had eight years to get the whole picture and one page produced from an academic has created more debate than any information provided by this Government in those eight years, so perhaps it is a little bit too late for the SNP to look for the whole picture. However, I want to start off by praising a member from the SNP benches. John Mason, a thought-made, a very interesting and thoughtful contribution, as he often does in finance debates. He talked about real questions about the performance of Glasgow colleges. He talked about the balance between employment and self-employment and the value of self-employment. He talked about exams, just the strict analysis of exams and numbers versus a more rounded approach and analysis to the wider goals of education. I actually thought that his focus on education and employment work in the economy was perhaps a lesson for other SNP-backed benches who perhaps should be asking more questions of their Government rather than trying to point fingers at every other Government and everybody else who may have some responsibility for it. After all, we are in this chamber to hold the Government to account whether we are Liberal Democrat, SNP Conservative or SNP-backed benches. We all have a responsibility to hold the Government to account, so I would advise SNP-backed benches to follow John Mason's great example from today, who has asked serious and thoughtful questions about the performance of the Government, as well as wider questions. In particular, I thought that Joan McAlpine was quite interesting, where she decided to lecture everybody else about student finance, forgetting the fact that we have seen students here since 2007 taking out double the amount of loans compared with that time, and bursaries have not fallen to £600, an item that Johann Lamont identified. Far from dumping the debt, they have doubled the debt for students. We have also seen fewer students from the private backgrounds in Scotland entering higher education. That is not a trend that has been followed in England. We have managed to change that. We have bucked that trend in England. Perhaps they should look south of the border for a lesson there, too. John McAlpine? Does that mean that he does not regret his former party leader's backtracking on making universities free? Does he support the £9,000 tuition fees that are imposed on Scotland? I think that it is pretty well known that my views are on the record with that regard, but it is disappointing that when faced with a serious question about people from the private backgrounds, she chooses to point the finger at somebody else rather than reflecting on their own record. That is this Government all over. We have tried to make a serious contribution to this debate, with two serious, I would say, liberal, person-centred, focused approach to trying to tackle inequality. I take Mark McDonald's point that it is not just about education but about the standards in employment and so on. I do not disagree with him on that, but I aspire for more from people from disadvantaged backgrounds. I just do not want them to aspire to just above the living wage. I want them to aspire to be even greater than that minimum living wage level. That is why I think that I believe that the route out of poverty is at the heart of it about education, quality education from the early years, the pupil premium that we have been implementing down south, but also making sure that we create more jobs to give opportunities for people. I will take an intervention. I know that the member does not seek to be disingenuous, but I aspire to that same level. However, he must also accept that dealing with the here and now is just as important as dealing with the future for those young people, because it is only through dealing with the here and now that we can improve that future for them, and that includes the external factors as well as the educational ones. I do not disagree with him, but so often what happens in economy debates and education debates in this Parliament, we always look to something else that is just a little bit beyond our reach as the solution, rather than trying to tackle the real problem at the heart of it. To me, I think that this Parliament and this Government really need to rise to the challenge of providing more nursery education. Someone that Malcolm Chisholm talked about making sure that those from two years old upwards get good quality education, because that is the best way of changing their life chances. That creates that foundation. Secondly, Taracating support, £2.5 billion of support was channeled into the pupil premium south of the border, providing direct support for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. Rather than saying that a whole area is deprived, focusing on the individuals and their individual support, making sure that they get the chance to get up and get on. Although I do not deny what Mark McDonald says about those other factors in society, let us focus on the debate at hand here, rather than looking for reasons why we cannot possibly act in the areas that they have suggested. I would like to just finally conclude on another remark that John Mason was making about when he was asking pupils as to how many we are going to go into engineering. I am a scientist myself and I want to see more people studying STEM subjects. I am also very keen to make sure that we get a greater balance in the STEM subjects. Far too often, we see women who go through higher education studying science leaving that profession, choosing to go off and do something else. We need to stop that STEM, to make sure that they stay in the science and engineering sector. That, for me, is fundamentally important to improving the skills and opportunities for everybody across society. Deputy Presiding Officer, I think that this has been a very interesting debate. I would particularly pick out very thoughtful speeches from Willie Rennie, Graham Pearson, Malcolm Chisholm and John Mason, because I think that there is agreement across the chamber that this is the most important issue in education. That is because the greatest gift that we give to any child is the ability to read, write and count. It is naturally a very considerable concern when yet again we have seen laid bare the true facts, and I do not actually think that it really matters which data we are using, because they are all pointing to exactly the same thing, that we do have an issue about literacy standards in schools. Obviously, there is a detrimental effect on the skills that many of those pupils take into the workplace, a workplace that is increasingly diverse and competitive. For us, I think that there is particular concern on two fronts. Firstly, in the past and over a very long period of time, Scotland had a very proud record indeed when it came to school education for all pupils, and that was irrespective of their backgrounds, and most especially in the three hours. The question has to be asked as to why we are not being able to make the same progress that we ought to be, because I for one simply do not accept that pupils are less bright than they were before, so it must be something else that is wrong. Secondly, despite all the initiatives, whether that is the Scottish Government's literacy commission, whether it is the Scottish book trust initiative, whether it is the play-talk reader, or indeed the curriculum for excellence itself, we do not seem to be making the progress that we want to. I know that the Scottish Government will come back and say that it is too soon to judge the curriculum for excellence, and I have a little sympathy with that point of view. However, what I cannot accept is the claim that there is something new about all teachers being involved in teaching literacy, because, as Malcolm Chisholm rightly said, one of the reasons why Scottish education was admired around the world was precisely because teachers were very conscious of their role when it came to literacy, irrespective of their subject, and they were trained to do that. It is a point that was made in the times educational supplement just last week, and it was also a point that I think was raised by the literacy commission that perhaps we have to look at the teacher training programme again when it comes to literacy skills. The cabinet secretary in her speech last night said that the Government's education policy will be driven by evidence and not by dogma and not by ideology, and I am very pleased to hear that, but can we just remind ourselves of what the actual evidence has been as produced by members in this debate? The proportion of pupils performing well or very well in reading fell across all groups. In primary 4, it dropped from 83 per cent in 2012 to 78 per cent in 2014. In writing, 72 per cent of P7 pupils were doing very well or well in writing, but that fell to 68 per cent in 2014. In basic numeracy skills, 69 per cent of P4s are doing well or very well, but that falls to only 42 per cent in S2. The cabinet secretary is right when she says that those statistics are simply not acceptable and they are not, particularly after eight years in government. However, let's continue the evidence base on the approach about what's wrong, because for some long period of time now, most primary school teachers and heads have been saying that there needs to be a much more structured approach to literacy teaching and one that has much more rigor when it comes to testing, reading, writing and arithmetic. They will tell you that situations where there is a tacit understanding that teachers will only use the tests when they feel that the pupil has reached the right level to pass do not actually work. They will tell you that there have been too many escape routes and it has been far too easy for there to be different approaches to testing in different parts of Scotland, a point that my colleague Mary Scanlon raised. Sometimes that has happened because heads or local authorities want to ensure that the timing of the test coincide with the publication of schools performance results, or sometimes it's because there is a reluctance to apply the tests of uniform basis because there is a perception that they are too stressful an experience for many of the children. The critics sometimes tell you that formal testing makes pupils and their parents over anxious. I suspect that there will be a lot more anxiety if their son or daughter actually becomes one of the 9,000 pupils who still leave school unable to read or write properly. Teachers are highly professional people and they are perfectly capable of administering those tests properly and delaying the anxieties of pupils and parents. I am afraid that I do not accept those excuses. That brings me to our amendment about the change to the number of exams being sat. There is a very important point here because there is a division in secondary education into the phase of broad general education and then there is the senior phase. That is very important when it comes to making subject choices because the new exams have meant that there is a decrease in the number of subjects that are being available in S4 and in most schools that has come down from 8 to either 7 or 6. Ironically, that was done actually in the interests of promoting a broader educational experience in S1 to S3, but unsurprisingly in the total presentations in S4 there is a decrease. That is not to say that there are falling standards across the board, but what it does mean and what it will continue to mean, particularly if it has an impact on higher and on advanced higher, is that they will have fewer qualifications when they leave school. That is a concern that is impacting on colleges and on universities and parents and pupils find that something that the Government has not yet been able to explain. As I close, it is a very serious issue. That is the reason why we have submitted the amendment, but on top of that it is very much a concern about the overall standard of literacy, which, as the cabinet secretary has defined herself, simply is not good enough. Many thanks, and our Collin Angela Constance, cabinet secretary, no more than eight minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was very much looking forward to this debate this afternoon, given my previous background in the youth employment brief. Much of my work, a number of years now, has been spent supporting that connectivity between the world of work and the world of education. The work that I led on developing the young workforce is indeed work and an agenda that I remain deeply committed to. We are now seeing youth unemployment the lowest that it has been in seven years, but make no mistake about it. We still have a lot to do in terms of both our economy and in terms of education, in terms of addressing systemic and structural youth unemployment. Now, Presiding Officer, depending on your perspective— Briefly, thanks. Dr Simpson. I wonder if she's happy about the fact that out of 3,767 looked after children, only 20 per cent were in fact in employment education on training after leaving care. No, I am most certainly not, Mr Simpson. One of the themes throughout all of the work that we do in the chamber and in education in particular has to be focused firmly on looked after children. We will come back to more of that, I hope, in the Government debate that we will have next week. Depending on your perspective, this debate has either been spirited or ill-tempered. We have heard the more considered tones of the likes of Malcolm Chisholm and Claire Adamson, and I think that that was appreciated by all. I know that many members have spoke about Labour's table and Dr Scott's data, and I only want to reiterate something very, very quickly because there are other substantive issues that I do want to respond to. The number of people achieving qualifications at levels 3 to 5 did not fall by 20 per cent. Between 2013 and 2014, it fell by around 6 per cent due to less pupils in S4, less presentations at S3, and curriculum for excellence focus on fewer subjects in more depth. I have to say to Liz Smith that fewer qualifications in S4 will not lead to fewer qualifications at S5 and S6, and that is something that the university sector has also reiterated and supported. For clarity, I will put full information of the Government's analysis in Spice of the issues in and around Dr Scott's data, and no doubt it is an issue that we may well return to, because I want to focus on the substantive issues that were raised by many members. Willie Rennie spoke about the pupil premium. It is something that I have looked very carefully at, and I will continue to look at interventions that provide a more targeted approach, and that are about getting resources and services to the children most in need, and that are about supporting those on the front line. In essence, that was the philosophy underpinning the Scottish attainment challenge—flexible funds that could be used to support kids most in need and those on the front line. I am also saying to Mr Rennie that some of the evidence around pupil premium has been less than clear, such as that from the commission of social mobility, which said that the money was often used to alleviate cuts from elsewhere, and that it did not always get to the children most in need. I assure him that I share his high aspirations for all our children, and I will continue to look at how better to target resources by building on a strong platform of universal support. I can also say to Liz Smith that she is right to focus on literacy and numeracy, and it is a central place in her curriculum. I think that we will come back to that more in detail next week. While I will say that most children are performing well or very well, we can see that in 8 out of 10 children in terms of reading. However, there is no doubt that there was a decrease in the survey results for 2012 to 2014, and we cannot have that, so we need to redouble our efforts. Through various debates and parliamentary questions, I have spoken at length about the work that we have undertaken over the past year and what we are doing to redouble our efforts now. I can also say to Mary Scanlon, who very eloquently raised some of the concerns that parents have. None of that, what she raised, was new to me, but I have to remind her. I do not say that by way of apportion and blame, but by way of fact, that local authorities have statutory responsibilities to deliver education. They have that operational responsibility for many of the matters that she raises. However, I will say that the point about having comparable data, data that allows us to track and monitor individual children, to know what is working, to know what is not working and to know what we need to do to make a difference in the here and now, is absolutely needed. I echoed the words of Sue Ellis, another academic, that we need to have a national debate about the sensible use of information and data, and that will be very important to have the right information, not pointless information, that we do not need. We do not want to increase that bureaucratic burden, but we need to have the right information about individual children at a local authority level and at a national level. Some of the work in and around the national improvement framework is about bringing all that together. Briefly, I make no apologies for investing £51 million into the protection of teacher numbers. I am very proud of the fact that we have a graduate workforce professional teachers, first-class teachers and I do not want to see numbers of teachers within our system fall any further. The important point is that teacher numbers have stabilised since 2011 at around 50,000-51,000. In the action that we took earlier in this year in reaching a new agreement with our partners and local government, if we find that structures and funding methodologies are standing in the way of doing what is right to ensure that our children get the best education, well indeed, there is absolutely nothing off the table. I think that it is very important to shine a light on the successes of Scottish education as well as giving a very honest evaluation of what we are not getting right. Our biggest priority is indeed the attainment challenge. That gap between children from the least and most deprived communities and we need to do more in terms of literacy and numeracy, but we should also say that we do have considerable success in our school system. We have reduced further and faster the proportion of young people leaving school with low or no qualifications, but of course we want young people to be leaving with the highest level of qualifications and we have increased the proportion of young people leaving school with the minimum qualifications at SCQF5, but we need to be aiming high and aiming high for all our children. Unlike Labour, we did halt the decline in our international standing when you look at PISA and we perform well in maths and are above average in terms of reading and science. The reality is that we are still middle-ranking and that is what we have to change. I will very briefly say to Jackie Baillie and Willie Rennie who said that we should focus on the powers that we do have and indeed I will pick up on that point that Mark McDonald also said. I am afraid that it must be brief cabinet secretary. I will always argue for more, but I just want to end by saying, Presiding Officer, and thank you, that while we will do everything in our powers to eradicate poverty it will never ever be an excuse for failure. Thank you very much and our colony and Gray to wind up with debate. Ten minutes please, Mr Gray. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The attainment in our schools is not the only link between the economy and economic growth and education. One would expect in a country like this, with our whole history built on skills, knowledge and inventiveness, a country that still has many world-class educational institutions, one would expect that a Government that had been in power for eight years would have a worked-out economic strategy and at the core of it it would have the idea of leveraging that excellent research into new knowledge-based jobs, pushing our industries ever further up the skills chain in order to compete in a globalising world. The truth is that we have a Government with an economic strategy that amounts simply to the imaginary benefits of hypothetical powers. An economic strategy that posits the idea that constitutional change in and of itself would automatically lead to growth rates unprecedented in our history and indeed the history of the western world. Indeed, not only do we not have that strategy, we do not even have support for the kind of strategy that we need. We have seen in recent times cuts to the global excellence fund, supporting exactly the kind of research that we need to see in our universities in order to create jobs through commercialisation. We saw the abolition of the intermediary technology institutes and they had been replaced with innovation centres tasked with creating 5,000 jobs in five years. Now, two years in, as far as I can see, the only jobs that they have created are the 65 within the centres themselves. All of our debate really has focused on schools and attainment, and I think that that is because we do agree across the chamber on the economic importance of unleashing the potential of our people. The truth is that if we fail to equip our young people for their futures, our greatest shame is that we blight their lives. Perhaps the greatest price that we pay will be the price of economic failure, and that is outlined most tellingly in the OECD report. I say to Mr Brodie that the report does not refer to Scotland particularly, but the numbers are so dramatic that I think that we can draw our own conclusions from. It says that in the UK, if all youngsters could reach a basic skills level by 2030, that we would add £2.3 trillion to the nation's economy. We know that, in Scotland, we have the attainment gap. We know that our youngsters are not all reaching the basic skills level, so we must know that the impact on our economy is also dramatic. Although the greatest failure in our problems with literacy and numeracy is the moral failure of letting down those children, particularly those from poorer backgrounds, it is also something that matters for our economy. We see from the Government's own literacy survey that we are making no progress in this, no progress in reducing the attainment gap, and he falls in literacy levels at all levels for all economic deciles as well. We saw last year that numeracy is exactly the same situation that prevails. I understand that the Government and the Cabinet Secretary acknowledge that, and she has today, but what she cannot do is somehow declare that as year zero, as if they were starting all over. Last night, the Cabinet Secretary told local Government that they must own their own attainment gap. I say to the Cabinet Secretary that she must own her Government's own record for the past eight years. I am not saying that the SNP Government have done nothing in schools for the past eight years. They introduced curriculum for excellence, and for the avoidance of doubt, we support the principles of curriculum for excellence. We began their development, but the implementation of curriculum for excellence has been entirely the work of the Scottish National Party, and for years, teachers, headteachers, educationalists, parents have been warning that there are problems. Jim Scott's figures are only the latest alarm bell that has been sounded about the impact, both of CFE itself but also of the new national exams and the way that they have been introduced. I regret the cabinet secretary's rather patronising and foolish attempt to debunk both those statistics and the credibility of Dr Scott as a researcher today. The statistics that we have discussed today were made available last week, and they clearly show a 12 per cent drop in the number of exams that were sat, and a 20 per cent drop in those who were passed. I am going to come to you, Mr Stevenson, in a second. I say to the cabinet secretary that Dr Scott was a teacher pretty well all his working life. He was the headteacher of four different schools. He is an education research fellow. He knows the difference between the number of pupils and the number of candidates. We have been very careful to say that this shows 102,000 fewer candidates. That means that individuals are sitting in an individual exam. Yes, some of that is explained by the fact that candidates are doing fewer exams. We know that, but, as Mary Scanlon said, many parents were told that their young people could still do eight subjects. Many were told that they had to do only five. That is something that has been left to individual schools. There is a problem here, both in the reduction in the number of enrolments and in the attainment. I say to Mr Stewart and to Stuart Stevenson the statisticians of our company who would like to examine the statistics. Those statistics are summarised from the SQA post-review statistics, which were published in December. They are there. If you have not got round to counting them up and normalising them, then I am sorry, but Jim Scott has, and we are not entitled to ignore it. The cabinet secretary said that we still have pupils who have not sat the new national exams. She would be well advised, in my view, to try and sort out the problem here instead of trying to fix the figures. She has to understand that there are two problems here. The education system that she is privileged to hold has traditionally been highly regarded for being broad and high quality. Those statistics show that it is narrowing and declining, and that is a problem to which she must turn her mind. On attainment, I acknowledge, too, that she has acted and introduced the attainment fund. We welcomed that investment and I continue to welcome that investment, but I reserve the right to scrutinise the way in which that investment is being made. She talked about the attainment advisers and the core of the attainment challenge. We have had exchanges about this before, but it became clear that she did not know how many attainment advisers there were going to be. She thought that there were going to be 12. The First Minister thought that there was going to be 32. Now we think that there is going to be one for every local authority. However, again, Mary Scanlon is right. Here is the advert. We do not know if they are for two years, we do not know if they are for 12 years. They might be part-time, they might be full-time. We do not know how many there are, and the best or the worst thing about it is that they are all sreconments. We are going to take the best teachers out of the schools and put them in a local authority office. That is not the way to address the attainment gap. The truth is that the way to address the attainment gap is to have more teachers, to have more teaching assistants so that teachers can teach and more literacy and numeracy specialists working with families as well as the youngest children. That is why we have suggested additional action of exactly this kind over and above the Government's programme. Yes, it was based on the introduction of a 50p tax rate that will not happen quickly now, but perhaps we could agree, perhaps this is something that we could agree on, that given the opportunity, we would tax the better off and use it to start to close this attainment gap that we have debated all afternoon. The truth is this. How much we care about this will be demonstrated by how much we are willing to invest. That is why the education record of a Scottish Government is cut education spending when even the Tories in England were increasing it, fall short and let's down our young people and Scotland itself. That concludes the debate on the future of Scotland's economy. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 13227, in the name of Joffits Patrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on the timetabling of stage 1 of the Scottish elections reduction of voting age bill. Any member who wishes to speak against motion should press the request speak button now and I call on Joffits Patrick to move motion number 13227. Firmly moved. Thank you. No member has asked to speak against the motion there, for I now put the motion to the chamber. The question is that motion number 13227, in the name of Joffits Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 13212, in the name of Joffits Patrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against motion should press the request speak button now and I call on Joffits Patrick to move motion number 13212. Firmly moved. No member has asked to speak against the motion there, for I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 13212, in the name of Joffits Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of four parliamentary business motions. Can I ask Joffits Patrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, to move motion number 13213 to 13216, setting out stage 1 and stage 2 timetables for various bills on block? I propose to ask a single question on motion numbers 13213 to 13216. If any member objects to a single question being put, please say so now. No member has objected to a single question being put, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 13213 to 13216, in the name of Joffits Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motions are there for agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of a parliamentary bureau motion. I would ask Joffits Patrick to move motion number 13216 on approval of an SSI. Moving 13218. My apologies. We are all spotted. It is, of course, motion number 13218 on approval of an SSI that the Minister for Parliamentary Business has moved. The question on this motion will be put at decision time to which we now come. There are five questions to be put as a result of today's business. Can I remind members that in relation to this afternoon's debate, if the amendment in the name of Angela Constance is agreed to, the amendments in the name of Mary Scanlon and Willie Rennie fall? The first question then is amendment number 13203.3 in the name of Angela Constance, which seeks to amend motion number 13203 in the name of Jackie Baillie, on the future of Scotland's economy, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament's not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 13203.3 in the name of Angela Constance is as follows. Yes, 62. No, 54. There were four abstentions. The amendment is there for agreed to and the amendments in the name of Mary Scanlon and Willie Rennie fall. The next question is at motion number 13203 in the name of Jackie Baillie as amended. On the future of Scotland's economy, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 13203 in the name of Jackie Baillie as amended is as follows. Yes, 62. No, 53. There were four abstentions, so the motion as amended is there for agreed to. The next question is at motion number 13218 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick. On approval of an SSI, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to. That concludes decision time. We are now moving to members' business. Members who leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.