 Felly, wrth gwrs, wrth gwrs, mae'r next item of business, sy'n ddigon i John Swinney o update on primary 1 national standardised assessments. The cabinet secretary will, of course, take questions at the end of his statement, so members who wish to ask a question, I would encourage to press their request to speak buttons now. I'll call on the cabinet secretary. Presiding Officer, in the period since the debate on P1 assessments, I have considered the arguments put forward and taken time to discuss ways forward with colleagues in local government and education. I am keen to address the intent of the parliamentary motion, take account of the evidence and recognise the duty that we all carry to ensure that our education system enables pupils to achieve their potential. There is a great deal of agreement and a number of points within the terms of the motion that Parliament supported. It highlighted that good quality pupil assessment is an essential component of the drive to raise educational standards in Scotland's schools. I agree with that. It was a key element of the joint statement that the Scottish Government issued with the Association of Directors of Education, ADES, in September. It is vital that we have the appropriate approach to assessment as we will be failing children and their families if we did not. The motion also highlighted the need to ensure that the P1 assessments are in line with the play-based learning philosophy of the early years provision in the curriculum for excellence. I agree with that. The early level of CFE explicitly provides for play-based learning and any assessment mechanism must reflect that approach. I believe that an assessment that lasts less than an hour in a year and is deployed in the correct environment is entirely compatible with that play-based approach. I fully recognise that view is not shared by all and accept the importance of ensuring the specific design of the assessments are aligned with a play-based approach. I have reflected on the concerns raised by colleagues in this chamber. I have read the feedback from teachers provided by the EIS, from parents and others, and I acknowledge the concerns raised. However, it is also important to acknowledge that others have had a positive experience. Overall, primary 1 children responded positively to the SNSAs in both literacy and numeracy was the view of one school. That feedback is included in case studies on the P1 assessment experience that will be published shortly as part of our user review of the assessments. While I am aware of the concerns that some parents have, I guess have confirmed that no directors of education have raised any significant concerns by parents in relation to the P1 assessments. This mixed picture must give us all cost to reflect and consider the best way forward. It strikes me that I am yet to hear a compelling argument about how in why Scotland has undertaken standardised assessments for P1 pupils for so many years, sometimes twice a year, without any concerns being raised by teachers, parents or politicians until now. No concerns were raised that those previous assessments, many of which were similar to SNSAs, were not compatible with play-based learning. I can only conclude that it must be that the education system found the assessments that have been in place for some time helpful and informative and a useful part of their overall assessment of children's learning. Another conclusion might be that some oppose the assessments because they are national assessments and they believe them to be high-stakes tests that we want to use for accountability purposes. They are absolutely not that. The key measure that the Scottish Government will use for assessing the standards of education is teacher professional judgment, not the outcomes of the standardised assessments. The standardised assessments are just one part of the range of evidence that a teacher will call on when assessing whether a child or young person has achieved the appropriate CFE level. The primary purpose of the SNSAs is to support teachers in planning, learning and teaching, whether in P1, P4, P7 or S3. Indeed, because they are diagnostic assessments and because they are specifically aligned to the early level of CFE, the SNSAs should be a better and more effective tool for teachers to use than the variety of previous assessments. I have also considered the advice from those charged with delivering education in Scotland. In our debate last month, I quoted the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, President Maureen MacKenna, who said that we suffer too much in education from decisions made too quickly. My ask is for politicians to pause and allow us time to evaluate. Addis also wrote to all local authority directors of education earlier this month and emphasised those points that assessment is a key part of learning and that it is too soon to pass judgment on whether SNSAs are a useful tool for teachers, that Addis is committed to working to improve and enhance assessments and, thirdly, the importance of keeping the educational argument central, specifically, that the use of assessments to inform learning are decisions for the profession to make. Given that the vast majority of local authorities have been running P1 standardised assessments for years, I believe that we have to give due consideration to the established approach of authorities and practitioners. The motion passed by Parliament gives no clarity to local authorities that if we drop SNSA, what should be done with their own standardised assessment programmes? This could see a return to P1s being assessed twice, whilst also removing the elements of national consistency and alignment with curriculum for excellence that are the key benefits of the Scottish national standardised assessments. That is the type of unintended consequence that can be created by a decision of this type by Parliament. I ask Parliament to recognise that that cannot be a beneficial outcome of this debate. Ultimately, I acknowledge that Parliament has formally taken a position that P1 assessments should be halted. However, I also contend that we must give due consideration to the established practice of the overwhelming majority of local authorities who carried out a form of P1 assessment, believing that that would be in the best interests of pupils. We face two competing considerations. I have therefore decided to commission an independent review of the approach to P1 assessments within the context of the national improvement framework. The objective of the review will be to reconsider the evidence, as the parliamentary motion asks me to do. I have asked Mr Massey's chief inspector of education to provide me with advice on who should carry out the independent review. The review will consider and provide recommendations on the following issues. The compatibility of the assessments with the play-based approach to early level of curriculum for excellence. The alignment of the assessments to the benchmarks for early level. The effect of taking an online assessment on P1 children. The usefulness of the diagnostic information provided to teachers and how it supports their professional judgment. The implications of the review for the on-going development of the national gallant legion education standardised assessments. The future of the assessments, considering in particular whether they continue in line with the current continuous improvement model, whether they be substantially modified or whether they should be stopped. I would welcome the input of the other parties to the formulation of the remit of the review and the appointment of its leadership. An independent evidence-based review could come to the same conclusion that I have reached, that P1 assessments should be reformed not abolished. I want to be very clear with the chamber today that the outcome of the review could be a recommendation to stop the assessments. The review will be led by the evidence and by what is best for pupils. That is, I believe, the right way to resolve the competing considerations that we face following the vote of Parliament last month. The review will be asked to provide conclusions and recommendations on each of those issues by the end of May 2019. That will allow time for us to digest the findings and for Parliament to debate them prior to the summer recess. To properly inform it, the review will clearly need to see the assessments in operation, so I reiterate my previous advice that schools should continue with their existing plans in relation to the implementation of SNSA in 2018-19. By proceeding with the assessments this year, we will generate a larger evidence base to see how the improvements that we have already introduced are working and what other changes could be made. To do otherwise, we would simply generate uncertainty and confusion during the school year. The Scottish Government advice is clear about the timing of assessments, which should not involve all children being assessed in blocks or windows. Local authorities should work collaboratively with head teachers to agree plans for the assessments, taking account of the needs of the children and young people involved. That sits comfortably with the ADS advice that the timing of the assessments should be driven by educational arguments. That was made clear in the recent ADS advice to directors, which said that there is no need for a window to be identified when assessments must be carried out. Teachers' judgment is key here, and that judgment should be left to teachers to make based on the interests of their pupils. I ask colleagues across the chamber to move the discussion away from politics, to focus on the educational needs of our children and to support the independent review of P1 assessments that I have set out today. We will move now to questions starting with Liz Smith to be followed by Ian Gray. Thank you. I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement and draw his attention to a comment that he made on 15 March 2001, while criticising the then Scottish Executive when he said, and I quote, "...people expect this Parliament to decide." Does the cabinet secretary still believe that the will of this Parliament is paramount? Does he believe that this Parliament voted to act upon the evidence already provided by a large number of primary 1 teachers who were telling the cabinet secretary that the tests are neither adding value to the assessments already in place nor are wholly in line with the play-based philosophy and early years of the curriculum for excellence? Furthermore, in his speech to the SNP conference, the cabinet secretary called the opposition parties a disgrace on this issue because he asserted that we had used only political opportunism rather than the educational arguments about the whole issue. So can I ask the cabinet secretary, does he also believe that those primary 1 teachers and those members of the public and parents who are opposing these tests are also a disgrace and guilty of political opportunism? Finally, can I ask the cabinet secretary again if he is now agreeing that there is need for an independent review exactly what evidence was it that convinced him that four and five-year-olds in Scotland needed to be tested in this way when many high-performing education systems do not consider such tests as either necessary or educationally beneficial? Senator, there are a number of points in there that I will need to take time to deal with. First of all, I do believe that the will of Parliament is important and I am trying to address the will of Parliament. What I have set out in my statement today is how I intend to respect the will of Parliament by addressing the different components of the motion that Liz Smith authored and put forward. One element of which was to reconsider the evidence. I am proposing to reconsider the evidence by instituting an independent review, so I am respecting the will of Parliament to do that, but what I have to be mindful of—and I am the only person in the chamber who has this duty—is to ensure that I do not act in a fashion that disrespects the educational performance and approaches that are put in place to support the needs of young people, the length and breadth of country, because that is my duty as education secretary to do that. When Liz Smith said that what evidence compelled me to believe that assessments of four and five-year-olds should be undertaken, the custom and practice of 27 out of 32 local authorities in Scotland, doing exactly that for many, many years without a word of objection, was part of what I believed was important, but there was an important enhancement in the assessments that we have put in place, which was the ability to support teachers the length and breadth of the country by providing some advice on consistency of achievement of standards across the country, which was missing from the independent schemes taken forward by individual local authorities. Liz Smith raised the comments that I made at my party conference, and I described the opposition parties as being guilty of political opportunism. I did that specifically to the Conservatives. I went through in the parliamentary debate precisely why I felt that that was political opportunism, because the Conservatives had tried to create an impression that at no stage they had ever supported P1 assessments when, in fact, they had done so. That was why I said those things, but what I am trying to do today is to move us on from that political debate and concentrate on the educational arguments that are the duty of all members of Parliament to focus on those questions. Ian Gray, to be followed by Ross Greer. My thanks to the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement. The cabinet secretary says that he wishes to respect the Parliament's will. That is just not true. The intent of the motion passed and the will of this Parliament could not be clearer. It is that the national test stop in primary 1. This whole statement was a justification for refusing to respect a motion and defying this Parliament. The cabinet secretary demands that we focus on educational needs. That is exactly what we did in reaching the conclusion that we did a month ago. Parliament listened to teachers, parents and the educational arguments and voted accordingly. Mr Swinney's problem is that he lost those educational arguments. It is the politics of the cabinet secretary's denial, his stubbornness and his hubris that must be set aside here. What on earth gives him the right to defy this Parliament? When Mr Gray uses the language that he uses, he betrays what is at the heart of his agenda here, which is the politics of all of this. That is all that Mr Gray is interested in. Mr Gray is only interested in the politics of all of this. Mr Gray cannot marshal universal educational opinion to support the argument. Mr Gray says that he neither can I and I am acknowledging that, and I have acknowledged that throughout this process, which is why— It is not a conversation, Mr Gray, please. I am putting in place an independent review to consider the issues and to do as Mr Gray voted for in the parliamentary motion to reconsider the evidence. If Mr Gray had objected to that, Mr Gray should not have put that in the motion. He should not have co-authored it with Liz Smith. He should have accepted it. If Mr Gray wanted to stop the test and not raise the issue of reconsidering the evidence, he should have put a motion to Parliament to that effect, but he did not do that. He was so interested in getting a cobbled together political deal with the Tories. That was what he signed up to. I am simply pursuing what Parliament put in place, but what I am not prepared to do, which Mr Gray appears to be prepared to do, is to act in a fruitless fashion with the educational wellbeing of children. I will not do that for political convenience, which is what Mr Gray signed up to in the parliamentary debate. I thank the Deputy First Minister for advance copy of his statement and remind him that some of us have held a consistent position against the testing of young children before it became standardised nationally. However, in the course of the review, all options, including continuous formative assessment, rather than formalised, whether it is standardised nationally or not, will be put on the table. What right does the Deputy First Minister think that he has to pick and choose when he respects the will of Parliament? First of all, to Mr Gray, he is absolutely correct that the Green Party has had a consistent position of opposition to those assessments. I acknowledge that, as I have done in previous occasions. However, Mr Gray then goes on to engage in the issues that I have put forward in a constructive way about what might be the content of the review that we undertake. I am perfectly willing to embrace the points that he makes, because I think that there are reasonable points to add into the remix, so that we can have a considered view about those questions. Fundamentally, what I said and what I acknowledged in my statement was that the independent review could end up saying that, with those changes, P1 assessment should continue. Equally, the review could say that it does not matter what you do, P1 assessment should stop. I have accepted that that may well be the outcome of the review. What I am simply saying is that the Parliament asked me, as part of the motion, to reconsider the evidence and I am putting in place a mechanism to enable the Parliament to do that in a way that we can have a considered discussion about that, bearing in mind the issues that Mr Greer has raised, which help us to advance the educational debate on all of those points in the period going forward. I think that that would be to the benefit of Scottish education. Tamish Scott, to be followed by Gil Ross. I thank the Deputy First Minister for his statement as well. The review that he has mentioned before was steered by Education Scotland, and it was the unequivocal backers of testing of four and five-year-old boys and girls in primary 1. What will be different this time? In the meantime, tens of thousands of those four and five-year-old girls and boys in primary 1 will continue to be tested through the remainder of 2019. What bit of halt does the Government not understand? The first point that I said to Mr Scott and I may not have made this explicitly clear is that the review will not be carried out by Education Scotland, it will be carried out independently of Government and Education Scotland. I will take advice from the chief inspector of education about who should take forward that review, but as I have indicated in my statement, I am very welcome to discuss those questions with other parties within the Parliament to secure broad agreement about how we might take forward those issues. Mr Greer has suggested elements that could be enhanced about the remit. I welcome that and I welcome the input from other members of Parliament as to how we might do that and how we might take forward that approach to command as broad support as we possibly can do, so that we do that on an evidence basis to ensure that we come to the correct conclusions. The second point that Mr Scott raised was in relation to the involvement of P1 pupils in the school year in those assessments. I believe that there is a justification for maintaining that position, to give us further evidence to consider as part of the evidence review, but also to acknowledge the fact that those assessments have been gone on within Scottish schools in 27 out of 32 local authority areas for many, many years. It helps to structure the assessment of young people's performance and to enhance the learning that they undertake. That is the whole purpose of assessment for learning, which is exactly what the approach that I am setting out is designed to address. Gail Ross, to be followed by Alison Harris. Can the cabinet secretary outline what support the Scottish Government is giving the teachers that are currently administering the assessments? There has been a variety of training and briefing events made available to individual teachers. We have taken into account some of the feedback from the first year of implementation, which has changed practice for the deployment of the standardised assessments in this school year. We will continue to offer that, and we will establish the P1 practitioners forum, which will enable primary one practitioners to feedback directly to the Government and to the Scottish national standardised assessment team. Various practical and operational issues arise out of the administration of those assessments. The Government provides that support in schools, but clearly we are also listening intently to the feedback from individual practitioners about their experience in taking forward those assessments. Alison Harris, to be followed by Clare Adamson. Thank you. The Parliament voted to scrap P1 tests. The Deputy First Minister was adamant that we, in Parliament, were wrong. Now that he has commissioned a lengthy review, and on page 5, he says in his statement that P1 assessments should be reformed, not abolished. Our alternative review might say that the outcome is that those assessments have to be stopped. Has the cabinet secretary already decided that parts of those assessments need to be reformed, and exactly how much will that review cost? I have already introduced a number of changes to the second year of standardised assessments for 2018-19, based on the feedback that we had from the previous year from practitioners. I have remained open to making sure that we address those issues. As the president of the Association of Directors of Education stated, we need to enable time to be given to see what the experience is involved in taking forward measures of that type. The Government will remain, as I answered Gail Ross a moment ago, very open to understanding that feedback from individuals. In relation to the cost of the review, we will look carefully at the management of costs of an individual review. If we are going to take steps that will have an effect on the learning of young people in our education system, we must be prepared to invest in the research processes to enable that to happen. That is what the Government does ordinarily, and that is what we will do in this particular case. I will, of course, report fully to Parliament on all costs that are involved. Clare Adamson, to be followed by Johann Lamont. I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement and particularly welcome the review that he is putting in place. The P1 assessments have given rise to competing considerations of the Parliament and the obligation on every Government to do what it thinks is in the best interests of its young people and its citizens. However, does the cabinet secretary agree with me that his decision should be based on the most reliable information and the best examples from other countries to ensure that we are doing the right thing for the young people of Scotland? That has been the consideration in my mind, because I could have come here and said that we were going to do nothing about it. I could have said that we were not going to have an independent review at all, but I have come here and accepted that I am instituting a process that might result in evidence been marshaled that says that we should not proceed with P1 assessments. However, what I am trying to persuade Parliament of is the importance of taking an evidence-based approach to this whole question. I think that that was lacking from the debate that we had earlier on. There is competing evidence on that question, and I want to have that considered independently so that at no stage are we taking a decision that could be in any way damaging to the educational wellbeing of children and young people in our society. Johann Lamont will be filled by Maureen Watt. Thank you very much. I say gently to the cabinet secretary that it may be a comfort zone for him to impugn the motives of people who raise those issues, but generally people who are concerned about those questions are concerned because they care about the education of our young people, and it does not do you or anyone else any service to suggest that people's motives are anything other than that. On the specifics, on 21 June, the First Minister said, as a result of the introduction of standardised assessment and the new way in which we are monitoring performance, instead of the previous Scottish survey of literacy and numeracy data, we will now have data on every pupil in the country that will allow us to determine progress in reducing the attainment gap. The education secretary today says that this is not the purpose of those tests, so is it the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister who is wrong because, self-evidently, they cannot both be right? Johann Lamont frequently accuses me of impugning people's motives, and maybe I have to look at how I communicate about some of those questions, but I do not impugn the motives of teachers who come to me and say that they do not like them. Equally, I do not impugn the motives of teachers who come to me and say that they are essential, because those are points of view that I have heard, and Johann Lamont will have heard them as well, and if she is not, then I do not think that she is listening to all sides of the debate, because all the evidence is marshaled, which shows that those are competing points of view. If I have impugned anyone's motives, I have impugned the motives of the Conservatives, because they have behaved politically, in my view, in an utterly inconsistent fashion on this question. I am owning up to impugning the motives of the Conservatives, but nobody else in this debate. I might take a different perspective on the debate, which is why I am commissioning an independent review of the process. In my statement to answer the second part of Johann Lamont's question, I made it expressly clear that standardised assessments form part of the overall judgment that is made by individual teachers of whether young people are reaching the levels in curriculum for excellence. That is what the purpose of standardised assessments are used for, and the point that the First Minister was making in the quote that Johann Lamont cited is that what the standardised assessments enable us to do is to support the achievement of consistency or reflecting consistency in assessment across the country, which is not possible within the individual compartmentalised assessments that are undertaken in each individual local authority area. Maureen Watt Can the cabinet secretary set out what advice was sought by Aberdeen City Council from Education Scotland regarding their decision to halt national P1 testing, as, according to a recent FOI, they have received no representations from parents to halt the tests and previously had their own P1 tests? Does this not represent a cynical move by the current administration in Aberdeen City to jump on an SNP-bad political bandwagon, which is to the detriment of people's underpairments? Michael Matheson Presiding Officer, I am not aware of any advice that Aberdeen City Council has sought from Education Scotland, and I would not ordinarily be aware of that point, because Education Scotland operates independently from Government. On the substantive point that Maureen Watt raises, I heard a representative of the leadership of Aberdeen City Council being interviewed on the radio, who was making the argument against P1 assessments and was rather uncomfortably at the point that was put on by the interview that Aberdeen City Council has been running P1 assessments for many years. The individual concerned did not seem to have considered the implications of that particular stance. What I urge local authorities to do is to participate in the exercise to do the consideration of the evidence as effective as we possibly can do, independently of the process, and to come to an evidence-based conclusion about what is right for the assessment of primary 1 pupils in Scotland. I apologise to the four members, which I could not call Michelle Ballantyne, John Mason, Daniel Johnson and Gillian Martin, but there is not enough time this afternoon. I am afraid that we have a number of statements to get through. We move on to the next item of business, which is a statement from the cabinet secretary, Humza Yousaf, on home detention curfews. I will just take a few seconds, or as little time as possible, for members and ministers to change seats.