 I welcome everybody to the 31st meeting of the Education and Culture Committee in 2015, and I remind all those present that all electronic devices should be switched off at all times. We have a full committee here this morning, and I can also welcome Liz Smith, who has joined us again this morning for the stage 2 of the Education Scotland bill. Our first item is to agree to take item 5 in private. Are we all agreed? That's agreed. Our second item today is the stage 2 consideration of the Education Scotland bill, which we will complete. I welcome Angela Constance, Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, and our accompanying officials. The committee of course met yesterday under Firmland when we concluded by agreeing section 19. Therefore, I call amendment 172 in the name of Liam McArthur in a group on its own. Liam McArthur to move and speak to amendment 172. Thanks, convener. After the complexities of my amendments last week, I'm pleased to say that I found myself in the position of this time round of dealing with rather more simple fare. Though, as with the earlier attempt to get the Government to back away from its, I think, ill-thought-out proposals for national standardised testing, my amendment 172, which I have pleasure in removing, is aimed at removing a provision that seems to me unnecessary, disproportionate and misplaced. Parliament should only seek to legislate where it has to, where there is a demonstrable need and where other less blunt and or draconian options have been explored and found wanting. Sadly, the approach of ministers currently is to reach for the legislative lever at the drop of a hat. A bad news headline or a demand from one well-organised or well-connected organisation or another is often all that it takes. I do not dispute the importance of councils having access to appropriate advice and expertise when it comes to education. That goes without saying, given their responsibility in this area, as we saw yesterday, ministers appear to have an insatiable appetite to now second-guess more and more of what it is that our councils do. The Association of Directors of Education, of course, made the case for making the appointment of chief education officer a statutory requirement. That, though, is a little akin to Santa's voting for Christmas. It was telling that no hard evidence was provided for why such a move is necessary. The argument that reorganisation in local government and the merging of education within larger departments with wider responsibility is interesting but not compelling. In order to carry out the functions for which it is responsible, any council will need to ensure that it has access to the requisite advice and expertise. In the same way, I presume, as the Scottish Government does when it goes through periodic reorganisation of its departments, ministers are never tired of telling us about how they have removed the ring fencing from large areas of local government funding, yet they seem determined to ring fence the organisational chart in councils across Scotland stipulating who should have what roles and what responsibilities. The amendment would remove another part of the bill for which there is little or no supporting evidence and give us some reassurance that we are not simply legislating for the sake of it. I have pleasure in moving amendment 172 of the money. I think that it is very important that we are given the information about where this idea came from or perhaps we should be asking who it came from and whether it was more than one person and what sort of consultation was done. I think that the second thing that I would like to know when the cabinet secretary responds is what is the evidence base. Is there a link between the appointment of a chief education officer and attainment? We are being asked to make a decision today. There is a very limited evidence base for it. My third point comes back to local democracy. In the Highlands, they elect 80 councillors. If I have learned one thing since May 99, it is that you do not go and tell the councillors how to do their job. I think that they equally respect the job that we have to do. Amendment 78 uses orbs local democracy. I think that it is disrespectful to local democracy. I will say that Highland Council is one of the councils where there is a director in the name of Bill Alexander, who is the director of social care and learning. I will repeat one thing that I said yesterday. I get plenty complaints about Highland Council, whether it is winterbines, planning or housing. I have never had a complaint that Bill Alexander is not doing his job right, despite the fact that he is also the equivalent of director of social work and director of education. In fact, I fully respect the decision by Highland Council to appoint him to that job. I think that we need to be a little bit more courteous, a little bit more democratic and respectful to those who are elected locally. I think that this is just another issue where local government is thinking well. Why are we constantly being dictated to? Why can't we make the decisions about the cabinet type system of running local government that is appropriate to their areas rather than being told by Edinburgh what to do? I would be grateful if I could get the information that I am asking. I come at this from a very specific view of being from local government at one point. I can see why there is a need for this role. I have seen how departments have been merged. It is quite important that we take that on board. In social work budgets with the change in social and health care when the integration happened, that took away quite a bit of the budget. Councils automatically merge departments and you end up with a homogeneous children's department. In some places, that might be a director who comes from a social work background. It might be a director who comes from an education background that is in charge of that. For me, the important thing is that I still have a chief education officer because someone needs to be there from the educational being educationalist and from that background. I think that it is important that they still have that individual within a local authority. Having worked in a local authority, I can see how those things can happen and how debate happens within the authorities. For me, it is always good to have someone there. We have it with social work already. There already is a chief and that is extremely important as well. From that perspective, it is falling on from other ideas that are already there and other guaranteed officers. I, as someone who worked in a local authority, was a councillor. I think that that is good for local government. I think that it is a positive step and a way forward for education in local government. Thank you very much. If no other members wish to contribute, I call the cabinet secretary. It comes as no surprise that Mr MacArthur should lodge this amendment, given his contribution to the committee's scrutiny of the bill at stage 1 and at the stage 1 debate. Equally, it will come as no surprise to committee members that I reject this amendment entirely. The Government has made absolutely clear that education is our key priority. We are committed to raising attainment for all and to reducing inequalities of outcome. I very much welcome the committee's support for the establishment of the chief education officer role in its stage 1 report. I welcome the committee's recommendation and recognition of the importance and complexity of council educational functions. Councils spent £4.8 billion on education in 2013-14. That is nearly 44 per cent of their total net expenditure. It has to be right that the voice of education is guaranteed to be heard in discussions about the use of such significant amounts of money. Communities and every local authority deserve the assurance that their education services are being run by those with high-quality educational expertise. I note that Mr MacArthur and other members suggest that there is no problem to solve, but we have already seen many director of education posts removed as councils have reorganised and moved towards shared services. That in itself is not necessarily difficult if you continue to have educational expertise at a senior management level. It is true that we are not yet facing a widespread problem. The vast majority of councils will be able to identify someone from within their existing structures who meet the statutory requirements of the post, but surely it is preferable to act now to safeguard the future presence of appropriately qualified and experienced educationalists in local authority senior management teams than to wait for some more significant problem to arrive at some point in the future. The Government is not looking to micromanage councils. The bill provisions are not about forcing local authorities to have a chief education officer in overall charge of the education service, nor will they prevent councils from moving to a model of shared service delivery, whether within or across councils should they so wish. They will simply ensure both now and in the future that there is someone with an education background at senior level in councils. There are parallels, as some members have mentioned, with chief social work officers, chief planning officers and chief finance officers. I say to Mary Scanlon that the Government has certainly heard representations for the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, but no-one can seriously argue that having fewer education was involved in education services is a good thing. Let me finish, convener, by clarifying for Mr MacArthur and others what the role of the chief education officer will be. Although the bill provisions make clear that the role is an advisory one, it is important to understand the nature of that advice. The chief education officer is not offering well-intentioned suggestions for the authority to take or leave as it wishes. The advice provided will ensure that the authority has the necessary knowledge and understanding to deliver statutory functions effectively and with the best interests of children and young people at their heart. There will of course be full consultation on draft regulations. The working group has met on two occasions now and have agreed an outline of the guidance. I have begun to discuss the qualifications that are necessary for the chief education officer role. My argument, convener, is that the role of the chief education officer is unargubly a crucial one. I do not support amendment 172 and ask that Mr MacArthur withdraw it. I call on Liam MacArthur to wind up the debate and indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw his amendment. I thank Mary Scanlon, George Adam and the minister for their contribution to the discussion. I think that Mary Scanlon set out some fairly reasonable questions in terms of the genesis of the proposal, the consultation that has taken place, and the evidence on which it is based. Crucially, also the issue of local democracy. I noted that the minister, in her comments, said that it was no surprise that this was born of the Government's commitment to bringing education as its number one priority. Any evidence to suggest that the proposal being brought forward under section 78 is a requirement in order to deliver on that priority or, indeed, to enclose the attainment gap. It seems to me to be the creation of a straw man. It appears to be discourteous, disrespectful and slightly disingenuous about the priority to which local authorities attach to the delivery of education. Yes, there has been restructuring within local councils, but access to expertise in education is still something that councils will take with the utmost seriousness. We also heard that the role is advisory, but somehow more than advisory. That was something that, in the evidence at stage 1, was far from clear. I think that the cabinet secretary has reiterated that this is an advisory role, but more than advisory, which begs the question what precisely is in visits. George Adam told us about his background in local government, and I certainly bow to that. I would be interested to know the views of those elected members and officials in the council that George Adam is no longer a member in relation to the provision that has been brought forward in the new section 78. I rather suspect that George Adam would have taken a different view on the matter where he is still a councillor. The fact is that, second guessing at every term what it is that councils do, rather than giving them the respect and the licence to act in the ways that they see fit, given their statutory requirements and the democratic accountability to those who elect them and those who are there to serve, is a dangerous path to go down, and therefore I will be moving my amendment 172. I am pressing the amendment. Thank you very much, Mr MacArthur. The question is that amendment 172 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not all agreed, therefore there shall be a division, but those members who wish to support amendment 172, please vote now. Thank you. Those against? Thank you. The result of the division on amendment 172, two votes in favour and seven votes against, amendment 172 was not agreed to. The question is that sections 21 and 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 133 in the name of the cabinet secretary? Group with amendments 135, 136, 137, 138 and 139. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 133 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you. It is important, convener, to state that this policy is not new. Ensuring head teachers are qualified before being appointed has been the long-term goal of Government since 2005. Since then, local authorities have been expected to appoint qualified head teachers and teaching Scotland's future, the establishment of Scottish College for Educational Leadership, and the new qualification itself has laid ground for this change. This Government is acutely aware of the importance of head teachers to the success of our education system. That is why the First Minister announced in February this year that holding a qualification would become mandatory for all new head teachers from 2018-19. That is why school leadership is one of the six drivers for improvement set out in the national improvement framework. The time is now right to underpin those expectations with a legal requirement that all prospective head teachers in any school must have been awarded the standard for headship before being appointed. I have considered the evidence presented to committee in advance of stage 2. I understand the concerns over recruitment and will continue to work with ADES to better understand why the number of candidates for some head teacher posts is low. However, I believe that a clear, high-quality and supportive route to headship will make the post more attractive and will help to address recruitment issues. I am also committed to revisiting the funding model for the qualification after the spending review and will look to establish a sustainable approach that employers, teachers and providers of learning are able to support. I also acknowledge the points raised by the independent and grant ADE schools and would like to reassure those schools that we will work closely with them to ensure that the regulations and associated qualifications take account of their circumstances. Fundamentally, I believe that every child in Scotland has the right to expect to be educated in a school with a head teacher with the appropriate knowledge and skills to help them succeed and to allow that school to flourish. It is right that we legislate for that ambition so that we can all be clear in those expectations. There are practical considerations that have been raised in evidence and we will continue to work with partners, including the General Teaching Council for Scotland and the Scottish Council for Independent Schools, to find ways to address those. One issue that we will consider urgently is how to ensure that teachers coming from outside Scotland who can demonstrate that they have equivalent education, qualifications and experience do not have to undertake additional study to work here. Moreover, members will note that any future regulations addressing such practical matters will be subject to full consultation and the affirmative procedure in Parliament ensuring appropriate scrutiny and enabling them to satisfy themselves of the detail of this important subject. Amendment 139 simply amends the long title of the bill to reflect the inclusion of the new powers relating to the education and training standards of head teachers. Amendment 135 to 138 makes some minor draft and amendments to ensure the long title reads properly with additional text in amendment 139. I move amendment 133 and ask members to support all the amendments in this group. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Can I call Liam McArthur? Thank you, convener. Just to probably more a couple of questions other than anything else, I noticed in relation to the requirement that this now be mandatory that the cabinet secretary I think rather candidly acknowledged the concerns that have been raised with us about current problems in recruitment of headships. I certainly know that that is a problem in many rural areas, but I do not suppose that it is limited to rural areas by any means. Therefore, I think that anything that makes it more difficult to recruit is obviously a source of concern. She has offered a commitment to work with Addis and others to establish what the reasons are behind that recruitment difficulty. However, I cannot help but contrast the approach not that the cabinet secretary, one of her ministers, took in relation to the BSL bill when we were raising concerns about an unwillingness or the relatively low level of standards required of BSL teachers to be told, I think, by officials rather than the minister to be fair, that they were not inclined to do anything about that for the time being because of the recruitment problems that that would contribute to. I think that in relation to the independent sector, I noticed that in subparia of 98 da, there is a specific reference to the head teachers in the independent sector. The cabinet secretary will be aware of the concerns that were raised with us by John Edward at Skiss, that there had been no consultation with them at all about the standard for headship and the application for independent schools. Following on from that, I am concerned that what had been worked up did not appear to have much, if any, relevance to the sorts of skill sets and requirements that their boards were prioritising in terms of the recruitment of head teachers into that sector. I would be interested to know whether and how the way that the amendments have been framed those issues have been picked up. I suspect that there is possibly more to do with the on-going consultation that the cabinet secretary referred to, but I would be grateful for comments on both those two points. I would like to make the point—I do not know if it can be enshrined in any way in the terminology of the bill, but I would make an appeal that, while we talk about the person who is pointing to the head teachers and we look at what is happening in London and what is happening in New York in the education field, that a person who falls within the subsection that we are talking about has to achieve standards of education and training. There is one element that I say is not easy to define and that is leadership. There is a strong difference in my opinion between management and leadership, and I think that those schools that have demonstrated success and movement in the cities that I mentioned and no doubt elsewhere have chosen people who have demonstrable leadership qualities. I will leave it there. I just wanted to be reasonable and to say thank you. That is for addressing the particular shortage of teachers in Murray. There are particular circumstances there, given that we have the RAF base at Lossy Mouse, the Royal Engineers that can run Loss, and at the moment, or at least in recent times, Murray was short of 26 teachers. In fact, some children had to be sent home last February when a bug was going around teachers on well, but they had to be sent home because there were no teachers to teach them. At the same time, we had 12 qualified teachers in the English system who were spouses of personnel at RAF Lossy Mouse and the Royal Engineers that can run Loss. I really do not mind putting on the record that I think that the GTC was pretty intransigent. I think that they could have been a bit more helpful, I think that they could have been a bit more respectful to these teachers. They were qualified, they are qualified, they are experienced teachers. I am pleased to say that, after quite a bit of campaigning and having them in front of the committee, they have finally moved, and I am very pleased to see that. I think that Scotland should be an open and welcoming place to teachers, regardless of where they come from. Although they may not have experience in our curriculum for excellence, any good and professional teacher can pick that up very well. Really, on behalf of the particular circumstances in Moray, the provision for exemptions and exceptions is welcome. I reiterate to put on record that I am a member of the GTCS and also I am a governor of two independent schools. I also thank the cabinet secretary for what has been considerable engagement since the problems were flagged up at stage 1. That is very welcome. I also intimate that nothing is more important than having headteachers in any school, in any sector that is absolutely first class and properly trained. That is one of the reasons why the new changes that are happening to the GTCS are very welcome. Indeed, note the issues that Mary Scanlon has just raised. The principle is laudable, but I think that we have to be slightly careful about how we develop any new qualification. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for acknowledging that she will continue with engagement in that. I do not think that there is a significant pool of evidence to suggest that there are severe problems with heads per se. There are problems in finding heads in recruitment, but I do not think that there is a significant amount of evidence that points to the fact that there is a problem of any considerable nature. I also think that we have to be very careful that we do not diminish the pool of people who are indeed with very specialist skills, particularly when it comes to some of the schools that deal specifically with children who have very specialist needs. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary in particular for amendment 133, which I think goes a long way to addressing the concerns of the schools and also of the independent sector, which, as it turns out, I do not think that we are really the focus for the into-headship qualification, which I think is the reason that they were not really consulted on this. I think that the cabinet secretary is right to be very cautious about the implications for the independent sector and its autonomous governing bodies. I understand that Skis has made very plain to the cabinet secretary and indeed to the First Minister that their legal advice suggests that the bill proposals, as they stood without those amendments, would have been open to legal challenge. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking that on board. I think that our education sectors are increasingly diverse and we have to recognise that. Anything that put them in a straight jacket would do serious damage, so I just leave that on record. I thank Mrs Garland for recognising the work that was completed to find some practical solutions for the situation in Murray. It shows what is possible. I would like to put in record my thanks to the GTCS, but it shows what is possible that we can maintain standards but also have some sensible flexibility. I hope that I have demonstrated to the committee that I am committed on an on-going basis to work with local authorities, independent schools, general teaching council and universities to ensure that, in providing the qualification that we get the absolute detail right. On Mr MacArthur's points on recruitment, vacancies for headteacher posts are sitting at around 3 per cent, but we recognise that around a third of those vacancies rest and a handful of local authorities are primarily in the north-east of Scotland. The vacancy issue is more acute in some parts than others. That is a matter that I will continue to discuss with our desk, but also other organisations such as the Association of Heads and Deputies for Scotland. We have to recognise that, personally and professionally, being a headteacher is a demanding role. Leadership is an important quality. It is central to the job of being a headteacher, and I consider the qualification to be more of a help than a hindrance, but I want to give committee an absolute assurance that we will continue to work with all concern to ensure that the detail is absolutely right. The question is that amendment 133 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The question is that sections 23 and 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Can I call amendment 127, the name of Alasdair Allan, grouped with amendment 128? Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 127 and speak to both amendments in the group. Convener, those amendments were lodged in Dr Allan's name because they principally relate to Gaelic medium education. We are dealing with them today because they make amendments to part 4 of the bill. Section 77 gives ministers the power by regulations to alter the number of children specified in the bill as constituting the threshold which will determine whether or not there is a potential need for Gaelic medium primary education, and therefore whether a local authority will come under a duty to proceed to a full assessment. Section 12-1 gives ministers the power by regulation to extend the application of part 2 of the bill to assessments of the need for Gaelic medium education at the level of early learning and childcare. On the introduction of the bill, regulations under sections 7, 7 and 12-1 were subject to negative procedure. However, in its report in June, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommended that those powers should be subject to affirmative procedure. We reflected on the recommendation and agreed to bring forward amendments to that effect. That is what amendments 127 and 128 do. In addition, amendment 127 leaves out the reference to the power under section 13b of the bill in consequence of amendment 105, which leaves out section 1 of the bill, and amendment 104, which instead inserts the duty regarding inequalities of outcome into the Standards in Scotland School, etc. Act 2000. I move amendment 127 and ask the committee to support both amendments 127 and 128 in the group. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Anything to add, cabinet secretary? No. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 127 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Can I call amendment 134 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 132, Mark Griffin, to move or not move? That is amendment 128 in the name of Alasdair Allen, already debated with amendment 127. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 128 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The question is that section 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The question is that sections 26, 27 and 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendments 129, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 173 and 174, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated? Can I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 129, 135 to 139, 173 and 174 on block? Can I ask whether any member objects to a single question being put on amendments 129, 135 to 139, 173 and 174? You object. Therefore, we will put them individually. The question is that amendment 129 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The question is that amendment 135 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that amendment 136 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that amendment 137 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that amendment 138 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The question is that amendment 139 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Y cwmaint erioedd yn ymwyaf am gyhoeddau L173, ac mae fel yn ei gyfam. Rwy'n gweithio, ac ond mae'n troi'r gymaint. Mae'r allanieddol o'r cwmaintau L173, rwy'n gobeithio ar gyhoedd. Mae'w ddiddordeb ar wahanol ac mae'r gymaint L173 yn cyfathor a llunio, ac mae'n gobeithio ar gyhoeddau L173. Mae'r cwmaint L174, sy'n gweithio. Gwyddech chi nhw iawn? A chyddo. Y cwestiynau iawn yw mwy ar gyfer? Thank you very much. That ends to consideration of the bill and I'll suspend briefly before the next item. The next item is to take evidence on the adoption of Children's Scotland Act 2007 amendment of the Children's Scotland Act 1995, order 2016. I can welcome back Angela Constance, cabinet secretary for education and lifelong learning, and her supporting officials A fyddwn i'n cyfnoddol bethau oedd wedi cyfnoddol, i chi gyd yn gweld eich Rhunit iawn i ddod i gyda'r Cymru? Felly, mae'n cael ei ffordd o'r ddudiau i chi'n cifrwysol ar y ddod. Mae'n cael eu cifrwysol ar y ddod i gyd, i chi gyd dedw i ddod i gyd i gyd. Gheitlo'r Balladol atripus hwnnw, i gyfan ni i gyfnoddol, i gyd yn gwychau ar Hal-Aid Scyddwnaeth Act 2007, amendment of the Children's Scotland Act 1995, order 2016, be approved. The order is necessary to clarify the Scottish Government's position that people who have had their parental responsibilities and rights removed, other than by way of adoption or human fertilisation legislation, are nevertheless still permitted to apply to the court for a contact order, which would allow them to maintain personal relations and contact with a child that they are not living with. The Children's Scotland Act 1995 outlines the requirements necessary to apply for orders relating to parental responsibilities or rights. When it was enacted, the act did not permit people whose parental responsibilities or rights had been removed by virtue of an adoption order or through human fertilisation legislation to apply for parental responsibilities or rights. Other people who had lost parental responsibilities or rights were entitled to apply for an order in relation to those responsibilities or rights, including a contact order. The Adoption and Children's Scotland Act 2007, however, amended the Children's Scotland Act 1995, and the purpose of this amendment was to allow persons who had lost parental responsibilities or rights under an adoption order to apply for a contact order with the permission of the court. Unfortunately, in making this amendment, the wording of the amendment may have inadvertently affected the existing right of people who had their parental responsibilities and rights removed by some other means, for example, removed by the court to apply for a contact order. That was not the policy intention of section 107. The order currently before the committee amends section 113ab of the Children's Scotland Act 1995 by repealing the words other than a contact order. That makes it clear that people without parental responsibilities or rights who could apply for a contact order prior to the 2007 act can still apply for a contact order. That means that any person who has lost their parental responsibilities or rights in relation to a child can apply for a contact order unless they have lost those rights under human fertilisation legislation. Therefore, I ask the committee to recommend to the Parliament that the order be approved. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I invite members to ask any questions. Any members have questions for the cabinet secretary at this stage? I move to item 4. As indicated, we now move to the formal debate on the instrument. I invite the cabinet secretary to speak to and move the motion. I move the motion on my name, convener. Any contributions from members' stage? I will therefore put the question. The question is that motion S4M-14949 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Thank you very much. The committee has previously agreed to take the next two items in public and therefore I close the meeting to the public.