 The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on education governance next steps. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on John Swinney, cabinet secretary, 15 minutes please. Presiding Officer, this government was elected last year on a platform of radical and bold action to make Scottish education world-class for all of our young people. That commitment has driven the changes that we have already made and it drives the reforms that we now propose. In particular, we pledge to give more power and resources direct to schools to put teachers, parents and communities in the driving seat of school improvement. Today with the publication of our next steps paper on school reform, we make good on that pledge. The aim is to deliver excellence and equity by raising the bar for all and closing the attainment gap. A simple, powerful premise sits at the heart of our proposals that the best decisions about a child's education are taken by the people who know that child best—their parents, their teachers, their school and their community. We are determined to build an education system from the classroom out. We will reform the system so that the key decisions in a child's education are taken by our schools. Schools will be free to improve learning and teaching, making decisions as they think best within a broad national framework. All other parts of the education system will share a collective responsibility and work within a strong framework to support schools to succeed. We have excellent teachers who are hard-working and committed to raising attainment for all. Many children and young people fulfil their potential. Exam results are very good and improving. The overwhelming majority of young people leave school to go into a job, training or continue their studies. We have a strong curriculum that has the needs of children and young people at its centre. Those strengths do not, however, mask the challenges that we face. There is still too much bureaucracy generating a necessary workload for our teachers. We remain committed to freeing teachers to teach and continue to work with their professional associations on further steps that we can take to achieve that. We fully recognise the message of PISA and the SSLN results. They reveal the significant hurdles to be overcome if we are to make progress on raising the bar and closing the attainment gap. We can and we must achieve more. That is why we embarked on a programme of reform. The national improvement framework and the attainment fund have laid the foundations for what I am setting out today. In particular, the people equity fund has put £120 million directly into the hands of our head teachers. When we launched the governance review last September, we set out to engage directly with teachers, practitioners, parents and professional bodies across Scotland. I would like to formally place on the parliamentary record how grateful I am to the many individuals who spoke to and for the written responses that we received. I am also publishing our analysis of those responses today. No-one will be surprised to hear that many of the responses from within the education system argued against change, but very few respondents expressed satisfaction with the status quo, and many respondents expressed real concern about elements of the current system. We also examined a wide range of evidence to inform our approach, including from the OECD, the International Council of Education Advisers and from children and young people in Scotland. Advice from the International Council has been clear. To improve our education system, we must tackle culture, capacity and structure, and I am taking a blended approach to address all three. The centrepiece of those reforms is a package of sweeping new powers for schools so that education is led by teachers, parents and communities. We will put the power to directly change lives into the hands of those with the expertise and the insight to target resources at the greatest need. Schools have the expertise and insight to target resources to greatest effect, so they will be responsible for attainment, delivering improvement and transforming children's lives. That will be supported by a new structure with three key pillars—enhanced career and development opportunities for teachers, improvement services delivered by new regional collaboratives and support services from councils. The evidence is clear that the strength and quality of leadership in our schools is crucial to delivering improvement. We know that head teachers want to focus on the delivery of learning and teaching, not to be chief administrators of their school. We will therefore give head teachers more power over decisions on learning and teaching, freeing them to make a real difference to the lives of children and young people. At the heart of that will be a statutory head teachers charter. Head teachers will be the leaders of learning in their schools, responsible for raising attainment and closing the attainment gap. They will be free to select and manage the teachers and staff in their school. They will be free to determine their own school management and staffing structure, to decide on curriculum content and to directly control a significantly increased proportion of school funding. International evidence shows that involving parents, families and communities fully in schools improves attainment, so that is what we will do. We will enhance parent councils and modernise and strengthen the legislation on parental involvement to enable all parents to play a role in their local school and particularly in their children's learning. To ensure that schools interact more effectively with families who find it difficult to engage, every school will have access to a home-to-school worker to make and to maintain such links. Children and young people must be at the heart of our education system, and we will strengthen their voice through more effective and consistent people participation. Parents should be involved in the wider running of schools, and we have seen an increased desire for autonomy in the proposals that have been put to us, including from St Joseph's Primary School in Moghau. As part of the governance review, we have carefully considered each application on its merits. I recognise what those parents are trying to achieve for their schools and their children, but I am acutely conscious that schools also need to support frameworks to function well. The reforms that I am setting out today will significantly increase the autonomy of our schools, the role of parents in school life and ensure that our schools are rooted in their communities. Crucially, however, our reforms deliver that with a clear national and local framework of policy and support. That collaborative approach is a key strength of the Scottish system and is critical to improving attainment and closing the attainment gap. I therefore cannot agree to pursue the specific proposals from parents at St Joseph's, and elsewhere, as they would remove schools from that crucial support structure. I consider, however, that we are delivering on the autonomy and increased parental involvement that lies behind many people's support for the plans that have been put forward in good faith by the parents of St Joseph's and other schools. The schools will lead, but they must have the support that they require to succeed, so we will back them with a new support structure around the three pillars that I mentioned earlier. The first pillar, enhanced professional development and career opportunities for teachers, will see teachers strongly supported throughout their careers. Professional learning and collaboration are key to that. We will streamline and enhance professional learning so that there is a coherent learning offer to teachers. Improved support through collaborative practice in new regional models and school clusters will also significantly build the capacity of teachers. We also know that some teachers have been frustrated at the lack of opportunities to progress in their careers, so we will work with the profession to design new career pathways to develop and to reward leadership skills, pedagogic expertise and subject specialities. We will undertake reforms to initial teacher education to ensure that new teachers are well prepared with consistently well developed skills to teach key areas such as literacy, numeracy and health and wellbeing. Finally, we will continue to develop new routes into teaching that attract a broader range of high quality graduates, including in priority areas and subjects. A formal procurement process will shortly begin for new routes into teaching, but I can be clear today that any new route into teaching will require to meet the GTCS tests, including a partnership with a university, to maintain credibility and academic rigor. This Government will not remove this crucial guarantee of the quality of teaching in Scotland. We recognise that the success of a school and teacher-led system rests on the availability of the right support, support that is not currently available consistently across the country. We must build the capacity for educational improvement within the system by putting in place the second pillar, a revolutionised offer of support and improvement. We will establish regional improvement collaboratives to pool and strengthen resources to support learning and teaching in Scotland's schools, led by a new regional director reporting to the chief inspector of education. Those collaboratives will provide educational improvement support through dedicated teams of professionals. Those teams will draw on Education Scotland staff, local authority staff and others. They will facilitate collaborative working, sharing best practice, supporting collaborative networks and partnership approaches tailored to their local area. I welcome the steps that have already been taken by some local authorities to embrace the approach, and we will work with local government to expand and to deepen this work. Those collaboratives will provide a coherent focus across all parts of the system through an annual regional plan for educational improvement, aligned with the national improvement framework. We know that our teachers want to constantly improve for the simple reason of wanting to do better for our children. That will help them to do that. The third pillar of support will be delivered exclusively by local government. Local authorities will retain a vital role in our education system, with responsibility for a wide range of education support services, including the number and catchment areas of schools in their area, the provision of denominational and Gallic medium schools, the administration of placing and admissions procedures, including for children with additional support needs, the provision of back office support services such as HR, and securing excellent head teachers for the schools in their area. Taken together, that is a crucial role for councils in ensuring schools have the support framework and services that they need. By retaining that important local accountability, we retain vital democratic accountability for the leadership of Scotland's schools. Councils will also have new statutory duties, a duty to collaborate to support improvement on a regional basis, to provide staff, including head teachers and teachers, to work within the regional improvement collaborative in partnership with other local authorities and national agencies. An empowered system, underpinned by collaborative working and a strong improvement function, will operate within a clear national framework. The Scottish Government and national bodies have a key role to play in this regard. As part of those reforms, Education Scotland will undergo significant change with strengthened inspection and improvement functions. Those functions will remain together with inspection, acting as a crucial tool that supports the system-wide goal of continuous improvement. We will give Education Scotland a renewed focus on professional learning and leadership, providing clarity and coherence to the national landscape. That will incorporate the functions of the Scottish College for Educational Leadership and will be delivered via the new regional improvement collaboratives. That will mean that hands-on advice, support and guidance can flow directly to more schools to support improvement. We know that current support can either feel inconsistent or distant and we must reverse that. As Parliament will be aware, Bill Maxx, while the chief executive of Education Scotland is retiring on 30 June, I can confirm that on an interim basis, Karen Reid, chief executive of the care inspectorate, will lead both organisations, supported by Graham Logan as interim chief inspector and chief education adviser. The process for the appointment of a permanent chief inspector of education, who will also lead Education Scotland and be my principal education adviser, will start in the summer. One of the strengths of our education system is that we have national teacher professional standards underpinned by a national registration scheme. We recognise that there are many other professionals such as education support staff who play a key role in educating our children and supporting our teachers but are not currently part of a national registration scheme. We will therefore consult on establishing an education workforce council for Scotland, which will take on the responsibilities of the GTCS, the Community Learning and Development Standards Council and register other educational professionals. To support those system-wide changes, we must have an approach to funding that ensures that control over resources for schools sits with schools. The consultation on fair funding that I am publishing today seeks views on how we can achieve that. As our proposals make clear, I have ruled out the development of a fixed national funding formula. It is clear that the reforms that I have set out today cannot be delivered by Government alone. They will require partnership working, shared effort and real focus on delivering change in every part of the system. I commit the Government to active engagement with our local authority partners, the professional associations and other stakeholders to take forward this agenda. I also acknowledge that the Government does not command a majority in this Parliament, so we will work with other parties to build agreement around those reforms. Some changes can be delivered without legislation and we will work with partners to deliver them quickly. For changes that need legislation, we will bring forward an education governance bill in 2018. At the heart of all our reforms is a simple plan. We will free our teachers to teach. We will put new powers in the hands of our head teachers. We will ensure that parents, families and communities play a bigger role in school life and in their children's learning. We will all support our schools to do what they do best and transform the life chances of our children. That must be the vision of all of us for the future of Scotland's schools. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement and tend to around 30 minutes or so for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. It will be helpful if those members who wish to ask a question or to press the request to speak buttons now. I call on Liz Smith. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Parliament knows that, for several decades, the Scottish Conservatives have wanted to see a school system that gives real devolution to head teachers. With regard to the general principles of those reforms, we are very pleased to see that the SNP is now supporting that direction of travel. The cabinet secretary is quite right to say that the status quo is not an option, and how could anyone argue otherwise, since it is the incontrovertible evidence that shows Scotland's schools are facing so many fundamental challenges, especially over standards of literacy and numeracy? However, the cabinet secretary will not be surprised to hear that we do not believe that those reforms go far enough, particularly when it comes to extending choice and allowing schools to opt out of local authority control if that is what parents and teachers want. I ask him three specific questions. First, why is it that, within the spending of the pupil equity fund, head teachers will not receive full autonomy, but instead will have to abide by both local government and national government guidelines as to how the money should be spent? Secondly, and after all the evidence submitted to the education committee in recent months, does he really believe that it is credible to have the inspectorate remaining part of education Scotland when that body is also undertaking the development of the curriculum for excellence at a time when there are so many question marks over the delivery of it in our classrooms? Thirdly, is the introduction of regional education boards not completely counter to the Scottish Government's stated aim to devolve powers down to local communities? First of all, I welcome the comments that Liz Smith has made about empowering schools and head teachers. I believe that that is the right step to take to ensure that the decisions about the education of our young people can be taken by those that we entrust to lead that education process and who have the greatest opportunity to effect that approach. Let me deal with the three specific points that Liz Smith raised. First of all, pupil equity funding. I think that pupil equity funding has made a huge impact on Scottish education already because it has given head teachers and schools and communities because head teachers who are acting wisely in this respect will engage their schools and communities in determining how best to proceed with pupil equity funding. It has given them the flexibility to address the needs of young people within their care. I think that what I am trying to strike in the reforms that I am making here is the balance between providing the autonomy to schools to be able to take the decisions that matter to young people but by providing the support that enables head teachers to make wise decisions. Any guidelines that are available on PEF must be supportive guidelines, advisory guidelines and cannot be the type of restrictive instruments that prevent head teachers from exercising sensible educational judgment about how that money should be distributed. My conversations with head teachers value having guidance about how to utilise those resources, but they equally value having the freedom to spend the resources in the fashion that they can justify educationally why it should be the case. Secondly, on the question of Education Scotland, I recognise that this is an issue that has been debated extensively within Parliament. As I indicated in the debate that we had in this some months ago, I have considered substantially this question. If we were to separate the inspection and improvement functions and for there to be leadership of those functions held separately within our education system, we would be requiring schools to work out whether they should follow the signals of the inspectorate or follow the signals of the improvement organisations. What inspection to me is all about is about being part of the improvement function of education. That is the vision that we have for inspection. Inspection is a contributory factor in the design of improvement mechanisms within education. Thirdly, on the question of regional collaboratives, they are mandatory collaborations between local authorities and Education Scotland so that we pool together our combined resources to have more effect on improving education in individual schools. Why is that important? It is important because today, in not every part of our country, schools can rely on a strong, specialist and effective improvement function to be at their disposal. That is not good enough. Every school in our country must be able to rely on such a resource. What we intend to create by the joint working of local authorities, Education Scotland and experienced educationalists is regional education collaboratives that will fulfil that purpose. I know that the cabinet secretary will fully expect me to begin by welcoming something that he has done. I am delighted that he has dropped the idea of centralising school funding in a national funding formula—well done. I also welcome the end of his flirtation with the idea of opt-out schools. However, the first of the two funding options on which he is now consulting, the one called a national approach to devolution of funding, appears to suggest that he still wants to decide individual school budgets centrally and nationally. Can he explain how that is different from a national funding formula? I have always had an open mind on regional collaboration as long as that was aimed at providing pedagogical and subject-based support in the way that the old regional advisory services were used to. That could really support classroom teachers in their work. However, regional improvement collaboratives, centrally appointed regional directors and annual plans, can he explain how that is not just another layer of bureaucracy and how it will support the classroom teacher in that classroom? Finally, consultation responses to the governance review from teachers, parents, educationalists and councils all said the same thing, that the first reform that we need is more teachers, properly paid, properly supported and properly resourced. Why is his statement nothing to say about that? Let me welcome the first two points of welcome that Ian Gray gave. I think that Ian Gray would acknowledge that it is a duty of a minister to consider propositions that are put to him by members of the public. It is part of his fundamental duty as a minister, so it is not a case of my flirtation with particular concepts. It is me exercising the duty that Parliament would be rather surprised if I did not exercise in considering proposals put to me by organisations around the country. In relation to his three points, the first of them is on the funding mechanisms. The first option in the consultation document, and I stress that it is a consultation document, is an opportunity for members and for different interested parties to make their contribution to the process. What it does is take forward the opportunity of giving more control to individual schools within a framework of design of particular components of education expenditure, which would certainly flow through local government into particular schools, but it would do so with conditions attached to that process. It is not a national approach because we would not be deciding all of the elements of that process. On Mr Gray's second point, I hope that we can make some progress on the common ground here because the vision that Mr Gray outlines of a pedagogical and advisory support arrangement that is available to enhance the quality of learning and teaching is exactly what I want to create. However, I want to make sure that it has pace and drive about it to improve education in Scotland, which is why I want the regional directors to be accountable to the chief inspector of education who will have the responsibility to ensure that we are constantly pursuing improvement within Scottish education. However, the vision that Mr Gray talks about its purpose is exactly what I want to see in place, because I think that we need to have more specialist expertise available to enhance learning and teaching at local level within individual schools. Finally, on the question of the teaching profession, the Government has put in place the resources that are now leading to an increased number of teachers in the profession. We are putting in place, through the mechanisms that I have set out here, a strengthening of the educational development functions of the system to ensure that we enhance learning and teaching. Those are some of the elements that the teaching profession has been calling for and which I am responding to positively to enhance the pedagogical and advisory influence that is available to strengthen learning and teaching in Scotland. I am now moving on to further questions. I have 13 members wanting to ask questions. The clue is in the word question. I remind members that I am the parliamentary liaison officer to the cabinet secretary. Is the cabinet secretary aware of the report published by the National Parent Forum of Scotland that says that moves to engage parents in their children's education have been largely successful but need to go further? Can he outline what impact he expects strengthened parent councils to have on our children's learning? The National Parent Forum of Scotland undertook a very good and rigorous review of the legislation that is in place. It has made a number of recommendations that the Government will take forward as part of addressing the commitments that we have given in the governance review. There are two elements of response to Ms Galruth's point that I would make. The first is that parent councils are an opportunity for head teachers to engage in creating a real community of interest in advanced education. As I indicated in my response to Liz Smith, there is a lot of very good evidence already that parent councils have been heavily involved in the design of how pupil equity funding can be taken forward and how that can have the most impact within the system. The second point that I would make is as important as that. That is about the engagement of parents in their own children's learning. Again, active involvement in steps to ensure that parents are more actively involved in their children's learning has been proven by international studies, which we cite in the consultation document response, to have significantly enhanced the achievement and attainment of young people and has contributed to the development of stronger performance within education systems. I would like us to take action in both those respects. I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement. I ask for three clarifications. Will the head teacher have the power to employ and sack teachers in his or her school, or will that power lie? How many regional collaboratives will there be in Scotland, and will any councillors be part of that regional grouping? The first point is that head teachers under the charter will be responsible for the selection of staff within their schools, but they will not be the employers of their staff. The local authority will remain the employer. My judgment is that I do not want to go from having—if I think that 32 HR systems is enough or too many in Scotland, I do not want to move to 2,500, so the local authority will be the employer of teachers and will deal with HR matters, but head teachers will be free to select the teachers that teach in their schools. However, for any issues of performance in other matters, the local authority would have to be involved in those questions, but obviously at the instigation of the head teacher. Secondly, on regional collaboratives, I am not prescribing how many there should be within Scotland, but they will have to involve a number of local authorities. I will consult with local government on exactly that question. I have in my mind that there should probably be six or seven regional collaboratives in Scotland, but I am not wedded to those numbers. Thirdly, I do not envisage councillors being on those collaboratives. I envisage them being collaboratives of educational professionals who will work together to enhance the—exactly the—support that I talked about to Mr Gray—of pedagogical expertise to be available to schools. However, again, I am prepared to discuss those issues with our local authority partners. Cabinet Secretary, the Education and Skills Committee recently took evidence from teachers on what load was an occurring theme. Although I welcome the reassurance that the Cabinet Secretary has provided that teachers will continue to be the leaders of learning, can he expand a wee bit further on the support that will be available to teachers and how that will improve their current situation? First of all, let me say to Mr Donan that I remain very focused on reducing workload, because that is a necessary step to free up the space to enable teachers to enhance learning and teaching. That brings me on to the second point in response to Mr Donan, that the enhancement of learning and teaching is at the heart of the governance review, and it is why we are taking the steps to draw together the work of Education Scotland and the work of local authorities in the regional collaborations to make sure that classroom teachers have available to them a range of expertise and specialism that will enhance the quality of learning and teaching. We believe that that blend will significantly assist teachers in fulfilling their potential. Thank you, Daniel Johnson, followed by John Mason. Regarding the cabinet secretary's remarks about alternative routes to teaching, can he confirm what the minimum amount of time spent in lectures and on supervised placements respectfully will be under those plans? How will that compare with PGD and other current teaching qualifications? As that is following a procurement process model, can he advise us to what the criteria that will be used to assess those and award those bids? No, it is one question, not a whole sequence of them. With no disrespect to Mr Johnson, I suspect that we could have a long parliamentary committee session on exploding the detail of that question. Those are all valid points to raise, of course they are, but let me see two things to Mr Johnson. The first is that some of the questions that he raises are material to the composition of initial teacher education courses. He knows from my appearance at the education committee that I have a question in my mind about the variability in those components, and that is an issue that we need to explore with the colleges of education. Secondly, whatever steps we take on any of the detailed questions that Mr Johnson raises, we must have assurance on the quality of the propositions that are coming forward, which is why there has to be an academic partner and it is why there has to be GTCS assessment of those particular routes to satisfy us that the quality of the route into teaching is of a sufficient standard to give us confidence that in identifying a new route into teaching, which may be a shorter route into teaching, quality has not in any way been compromised. John Mason, followed by Ross Greer. To follow-up Jenny Gilruth's question, we have areas in Glasgow, certainly especially poorer areas, where there are no parent councils in the school, because parents have been very reluctant to get involved in a parent council. Can the cabinet secretary suggest how we deal with that? I think that the way to deal with that is about encouraging parents to be involved in the school as part of the learning process. I was in Thomas's primary school in the east end of Glasgow. Cabinet secretary, you are speaking away from your microphone. I know that it is out of politeness and courtesy to somebody at the back, but nobody can hear you. It is disrespectful to you, Presiding Officer, and my apologies. I was in Thomas's primary school in the east end of Glasgow at Smithycroft on Monday. I was visiting a marvellous project where the young people were articulating their understanding and experience of the Holocaust, both in the Second World War in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, but also in Darfur in recent periods. I saw, at first hand, magnificent learning and expression by the young people, but I also saw significant parental engagement in the project and the process, which I thought was one very good way of encouraging parents to be part of their involvement in the school through the learning process. It may be that the learning process encourages more parents to be involved in the development of the school, but I certainly saw a very good example of that at St Thomas's primary school on Monday. He began by saying that headteachers do not want to become chief administrators, but then announced new responsibilities that they will have to take on over the recruitment management of staff and of budgeting. Is that not an example of the wider problem? That being that this exercise is not one that was asked for and will not resolve the key issue in Scottish education, that over the past 10 years we have lost 4,000 teachers over a third of school librarians, over 500 additional support needs teachers and hundreds of support staff. I reiterate to Mr Greer that I have absolutely no intention of creating headteachers as chief administrators of their schools, but I want them to be leaders of learning. If they want to be leaders of learning—I do not meet a headteacher who does not want to be the leader of learning, they want to be the leader of learning instead of the chief administrator in the school—many of them say to me that they cannot be leaders of learning because they do not have sufficient control over what they are able to do in the school and in their selection of staff. I answered Mr Balfour by making it clear that I am not going to set up HR systems in individual schools. That is not what is envisaged here. Local authorities will continue to provide that support service to individual schools, but I want headteachers to be able to have the discretion to choose the staff that will work in their school so that they can design the most effective way to deliver an effective curriculum for the young people in their care. That, to me, is the sensible route that will enable headteachers to make a profound impact on the lives of young people in Scotland. Does the cabinet secretary accept that I agree with his direction of travel but not his logic on education Scotland? Will the cabinet secretary confirm that, under those proposals, education regions will have to follow the national improvement plan, as will schools, that the improvement plan is of course education secretaries and that the chief inspector of education, now to be the principal adviser to the education secretary, will be his educational policeman? Therefore, does he not accept that, instead of decisions being taken at a school level that I entirely agree with, many people see those proposals as a top-down structure where Scotland's educational future is determined by ministers here in Edinburgh? I do not accept that characterisation, and I am very happy to discuss those questions in some detail. I do not think that Mr Scott and I are in any way in disagreement about that. I want schools to be properly empowered to take the decisions that will shape the learning of young people in their care, but I want them to be well supported in undertaking those functions, which is why I am undertaking the reforms that I am undertaking at national and regional level to make sure that all of us, whether we are in local government or in education Scotland or in the Government, are supporting that process of reform. It is not to prescribe. I think that one of the really interesting issues that we wrestle with in education is the level to which issues should be prescribed. I do not want to be prescribing issues because that would be alien to curriculum for excellence, but I want schools to be able to take those decisions but to take those decisions well supported by the regional and national infrastructure that is in place. I have come to those conclusions on education Scotland and on the inspection and improvement activities. From good analysis and sound reason, I am very happy to discuss that at length with Mr Scott and anyone else to try to get to a point of agreement because I want to proceed on those reforms with as much agreement as I possibly can do. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that it moves by councils like the Labour Tory run North Lanarkshire to divert pupil equity funding from its intended purpose into core education funding? Will doing nothing to help to close the attainment gap of free up teachers' time? Does he share my anger at the decision-making administration and North Lanarkshire to cut hundreds of classroom accessions for girls? You have got your question, Mr McGregor, about diverting funds. Please sit down. Presiding Officer, pupil equity funding has been allocated to make what I hope to be a profound impact on the education of young people and it should be used for that purpose. The Government is in active discussion with all local authorities, many of whom have responded to this approach really effectively to make sure that we see pupil equity funding being used in the very effective way that it should be to enhance learning and teaching for young people and to close the attainment gap. Before I call Brian Whittle, can I say to Mr McGregor that when I tell you to stop, you stop, you do not keep speaking. That goes for all members in this chamber. I note that COSLA is committed to moving regional collaboration forward in co-production with the Scottish Government, building on existing collaboration that already occurs between local authorities. With that in mind, with reference to the new regional collaboratives, can I ask the cabinet secretary what relationship will those have with local authorities and what role will they play in deciding on school policy? I welcome the statements that have been made by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on regional collaboration. There is a very good example in the north of Scotland and Northern Alliance, which a number of members will be familiar with. Seven local authorities have come together in a voluntary collaboration, and what they are doing is pooling resources to ensure that, right across the seven authorities, they have access to resources that can enhance the quality of learning and teaching. It is not about replacing deciding policy, it is about how to provide support to individual school development. That is the key part of the reform agenda that I am putting forward to Parliament today, and one of the key elements of it, is to create that support that will enhance the quality of learning and teaching in our schools, so that pupils in classrooms are able to be on the receiving end of enhanced support in the delivery of education. If we can make progress on that swiftly, which I think that there is absolutely no reason why we cannot do that, I think that we will begin to see the fruits of that in Scottish education very quickly. I welcome what the cabinet secretary has said about children and young people being at the heart of their education system. Could he outline how the Scottish Government has ensured that their voice has been heard throughout this process and will continue to be heard? We had a number of sessions that I attended, and Mr MacDonald also attended some of them as well, with young people who were facilitated by young Scotland and children Scotland. The format of those events was conducive to understanding and appreciating some of the perspective of young people, which has been reflected in the governance announcements today. I intend to continue that type of dialogue, and I also gave a commitment to Mr Greer in earlier discussions that we will involve young people in some of our national deliberations on key questions to make sure that the perspective of young people is heard very directly on those points. I welcome recognition in the cabinet secretary's statement that international evidence shows that involving parents, families and communities fully in schools improves attainment. The proposal or the announcement that every school will have access to a homeschool worker sounds very positive. I do not hear a question. I am not waiting any longer. Can the cabinet secretary say how many of those workers we will have, what the cost will be, and why he is in the mood to look at evidence? Will he still consider the proposal for school-based counselling as well? Those are all questions that I am happy to explore as we move to the detailed implementation that we will take forward in partnership with our local authority colleagues and other stakeholders. There is very good evidence, and some schools have already done that through the attainment challenge of establishing home-to-school link workers. It overcomes that. I saw some very good evidence of how successful that had been on a visit to the NCVR primary school, which I think must be in my colleague's constituency. We are very good success, which has enhanced the access to learning for young people who had been taken for. We will explore those questions in detail with our local authority partners. Jamie Greene, followed by Richard Lyle. The cabinet secretary says that he cannot agree to proposals from St Joseph's and Mulguy and others, because it would remove such skills from crucial support structures. Does the cabinet secretary not accept that headteachers must have the freedoms that those proposals called for? Which support structures does he think that an autonomous school might lack? The point that I am making here is that I have looked carefully at the demands that have been made and the proposals that have been put forward. I do not understand exactly the motivation and I do not, in any way, question the motivation of anyone who is bringing forward those proposals. I totally understand it. However, what I am providing through this statement is a level of flexibility and autonomy within schools that substantively meets the aspirations that have been brought forward by the groups to which Mr Greene referred. However, what concerns me is that our system operates on the basis of, yes, there being an amount of discretion and flexibility within schools, but also schools being able to rely on quality support to enhance education, because we must be able to give a guarantee of effective education to children in all parts of our country. In that balance, where there are competing points of view, my judgment is that the amount of flexibility and autonomy that is being proposed under those reforms substantively addresses the issues that have been raised by the parents of pupils at St Joseph's primary school. On that basis, I have come to the conclusion that I have come to, to ensure that the schools that are in our system are able to rely on quality support from the reforms that I have set out today to Parliament. Richard Lyle, followed by Graham Simpson, will move on to the next item of business. In the speech that the cabinet secretary said, and I quote, the heart of this will be a statutory head teacher's charter. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the head teacher's charter will be developed in partnership with the profession? If there were to be no councillors on the new regional bodies, can the cabinet secretary tell us who they will be accountable to? Will it be him? No, there will be collaborations between local authorities. It is about sharing expertise. It is not about top-down control, it is about sharing expertise, because the problem that we have today is that in some parts of the country our schools are not able to rely on a sufficiently strong pedagogical and educational support service. I cannot allow that to continue, so I am doing something about it and this is my solution. It is not about me controlling it, it is about me making sure that in every single part of the country every school can rely on strong expertise to support the delivery of education. That is the point of the reform. That concludes questions to the minister. Before we move on to the next item of business, allow a few minutes for the front benches to take their places.