 Felly, y assassin wedi y bwysig yn y uwch, ten allun? That concludes the statement and questions on winter transport resilience. We now turn to the next item of business this afternoon, which is a debate on motion number 14614 in the name of Angela Constance on the Education Scotland Bill. I would be grateful if the members who wish to participate in this debate could press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible. I will allow a few seconds to ensure that members can change seats. I now call on Angela Constance to speak to and move the motion. Cabinet Secretary, 14 minutes or so please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The education bill brings forward a range of measures designed to drive improvements across our education system. I very much welcome the Education and Cultures Committee report on the bill and its support for the bill's general principles. It is a very fair and balanced report which helpfully identifies a number of areas where we can look to improve the bill at stage 2 and stage 3. Education is at the heart of this Government's plans. Improving school attainment is arguably the single most important objective in our programme for government. Improving it overall and closing the gap between children in our most unleased-deprived areas is fundamental to our aim of making Scotland fairer and more prosperous. The bill has a key role to play. It sends a strong signal nationally as well as locally of the value that we place on ensuring that all our children and young people receive the best education they can and achieve their full potential. We have a lot to be proud of in Scottish education and we should all join in celebrating the achievements of our children and young people. If we are to realise our ambition of a more socially just Scotland then more needs to be done. We must build on success, ensure that every child and young person regardless of their background has a fair chance to pursue their dreams and achieve their own successes. We owe it to them to rise to the challenge of inequalities that exist within our education system. One of the bill therefore proposes that councils and Scottish ministers prioritise reducing inequalities of outcome associated with socioeconomic disadvantage when they take strategic decisions relating to education. Those are the key high-level decisions that determine how education services are delivered over a prolonged period. The relate to matters ranging from budget setting to the identification of measures for assessing progress within and across schools through to the development of the school estate. Although those decisions are of a strategic nature clearly they will have an impact on the day-to-day experience of our children and young people and that is exactly what we hope to achieve. The duty is designed to enhance the existing framework within which ministers and councils operate. We recognise the need to set the specific requirements of the duty alongside the range of other legal requirements that exist. Staturary guidance under the bill will provide guidance and support to councils in carrying out their new duties. I think that it is right to focus on tackling socioeconomic disadvantage at this point, but the bill would allow us to extend this duty to other groups of children and young people in future if that is considered appropriate. Liz Smith. I thank the cabinet secretary for that. I hear exactly what the cabinet secretary has just said. Could she outline what it is that has persuaded her that there should be a legislative proposal for this as opposed to other mechanisms that might have worked? The nob of it, Liz Smith, is that I want all of us, Scottish ministers, Parliament and local authorities for that consideration of closing the attainment gap and the duties that we all have to do that to be something more than just a passive recognition. While I accept that legislation on its own certainly is never the be-all and end-all, I do think that, given the impetus that we share across this chamber to really pick up the pace and close the attainment gap, that anchoring that duty in legislation to be appropriate. I do mind if I make a little bit of progress. Members will know that as part of the programme of government we published a draft national improvement framework for education to help drive improvement at local level and to help teachers, parents, schools, councils and Parliament better understand how things are progressing. I am proposing to bring forward amendments at stage 2 to place the framework on a statutory footing and to require ministers and councils to work towards the priorities in the framework which are improving attainment and closing the gap, improving children and young people's health and wellbeing and improving sustained school leaver destinations for young people. I also want to ensure that the bill provides for effective and transparent reporting arrangements covering both the framework and the inequalities of outcome duty. It is crucial that we can assess the progress being made but that that must be done in a coherent and proportionate way. The legislation is not and cannot be the only answer. The bill is just one of many areas of work under way to drive improvement and to help raise attainment. The Scottish attainment challenge now providing additional funding and support to more than 300 schools and to 21 local authorities is at the forefront of that work. It is the decisions that are taken about how to use the resources that we have available to us that will ultimately determine our success. I am happy to give way to Mr MacArthur. Liam McArthur. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way the point that I was going to raise in relation to the attainment of those who may not be disadvantaged in socio-economic grounds but on other grounds to do with additional support needs. As she is talking about the attainment fund, she will recall my misgivings about a scheme that, albeit targeted at 21 local authorities now, is still missing out at the forefront where instances of poverty and those at disadvantage are still a film to be addressed. Cabinet secretary. I can say to Mr MacArthur that when we started with the attainment fund, we wanted to have a very targeted approach but we always said that we would recognise that there are deprivations and severe pockets of deprivations in every community and that as we move forward that we would extend the reach of the attainment fund and we will continue to do that. The point that he makes about socio-economic disadvantage is of course the biggest aspect of the attainment gap. I think that it is right that we focus on that here and now but I am most certainly listening to other aspects of disadvantage and certainly have seen a lot of the briefing prepared by third sector organisations in advance of this debate who are certainly talking about the needs and how as we move forward we better reflect the needs, for example, of disabled children. Part 2 of the bill deals with Gallic-Media of Education. This Government has always been clear about its aim to create a secure future for Gallic in Scotland and the only way that will be done will be by increasing the number of speaking, learning and using the language. We therefore made a commitment to explore an entitlement to Gallic-Media of Education where reasonable demand exists. The bill seeks to meet that commitment by introducing a process for parents to request Gallic-Media on primary education and a duty on councils to assess and respond. We listened with interest to the evidence heard by the committee and the views expressed that the process proposed in the bill did not go far enough to satisfy our commitment. We therefore intend to bring forward amendments at stage 2 to include a presumption of favour of Gallic-Media of Education as part of the process of assessing demand. The bill also proposes a duty on councils to promote and support Gallic education and a duty on born of Gallic to prepare guidance. Those are welcome developments and we are confident that they will contribute to the growth of Gallic-Media of Education. Mary Scanlon. Can I ask the presumption is based on whether reasonable demand for Gallic exists. What is reasonable demand? Cabinet Secretary. That, Mrs Scanlon, will be set out in the process that we would hope to address with statutory guidance. I want to just now return to the issue of additional support for learning. The bill seeks to extend the rights of children by amending the additional support for learning act. Those provisions are complex and technical in nature but they are no less important for that. The bill proposes that children should be able to directly influence the provision made to support them in their learning. I have said that those provisions are complex and it may be that we have not got them all right as yet. That has certainly been the view of some of our stakeholders and we recognise that. We have had a number of very positive discussions with them and I intend to bring forward amendments at stage 2 to help to ensure that we get those very important provisions right. The bill also seeks to modernise and improve the way that education complaints are dealt with. The changes that the bill proposes will ensure that complaints related to additional support for learning are considered by the additional support needs tribunal for Scotland rather than by ministers, as can happen at present. That tribunal was established to ensure experts were at the heart of such complex matters and that has to be right. The bill proposes the introduction of strict timescales for the handling of more general complaints by Scottish ministers under section 70 of the 1980 Education Act. That process deals with issues like parental concerns about the provision of education for their children and can be very time consuming at present. We all know, Presiding Officer, about the financial situation that we are in at present. Councils across Scotland are having to look closely at their budgets and take difficult decisions in order to ensure that all councils continue to have a senior officer to advise them on education issues. The bill proposes the establishment of a statutory chief education officer role. That is intended to ensure that there is someone with an education background within the senior management team of every council. Councils have a range of complex statutory functions that require a sound, working knowledge and understanding of the practical implications of decisions. The bill is not prescriptive. It provides flexibility for councils to ensure that the requirement is met without recruiting additional staff or creating additional financial costs. High-quality teaching and strong leadership are key features of our approach to learning. They are crucial to effective learning. The bill proposes to introduce a requirement that all teachers working in independent and grant-aided schools are GTCS registered as they are already in local authority schools. That would offer assurances to parents that, irrespective of where their children are educated, the standards and quality of teaching staff are regulated by the GTCS. That requirement would also provide schools with assurance about the standard and quality of the teachers that they are employing, and it would benefit individuals by giving them access to professional update that aims to support, maintain and enhance teachers' continued professionalism through professional learning. I am confident that this bill will provide clarity and impetus on a number of key issues, not least the need to raise attainment and close the gap to help to ensure that our young people get the chance to reach their full potential in life. I would very much like to thank the Education and Culture Committee, the Finance Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their considerations of the bill at stage 1. I very much welcome the scrutiny process that this Parliament offers. The stage 1 report offered clarity on the evidence heard by the committee during stage 1, and I look forward to the debate today. As a Government, we have already listened to the committee and to those giving evidence and will bring forward amendments accordingly. We will, of course, continue to listen throughout the parliamentary process to strengthen and improve the bill and to make it as effective as possible. I urge members to support the Education Bill and its general principles. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many thanks. I now call on Stuart Maxwell to speak on behalf of the Education and Culture Committee. Convener, 10 minutes or so please. Thank you very much. Presiding Officer, I'm delighted to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the committee in this stage 1 debate. In the time available, I'll focus on two issues, pupils inequalities of outcome and Gallic medium education, as those provoked most discussion during our stage 1 scrutiny of the bill. As ever, we considered how the draft legislation could be improved and our report successfully persuaded the Scottish Government of the case for change on various issues. I'll highlight some of those issues in my speech, including areas where I think further debate is needed and trust my colleagues will discuss those parts of the bill that I don't have time to cover. First of all, though, I wish to make some broader points. The committee was concerned that full consultation was not undertaken on all parts of the bill prior to its introduction. I raise this point again as the Scottish Government intends to lodge amendments that would introduce two new and relatively substantial topics concerning the national improvement framework and headteachers qualifications. While we welcome the advance notification, that means that we will have to take further evidence before we can properly begin stage 2. I also welcome the Scottish Government's approach to addressing a further area of concern highlighted in our report, namely that the bill's policy memorandum could have provided more detail. It's encouraging that the Minister for Parliamentary Business is taking steps to improve these documents because, if fuller information had been provided at the outset, some of our recommendations may indeed have been somewhat different. I also think that it is only fair to thank the Scottish Government for its comprehensive response to our stage 1 report, particularly as October recess meant that this had to be provided well in advance of today's debate. The response and the very detailed evidence that we heard means that we can have a particularly well-informed discussion today on some of the issues raised by the bill. One such issue is the proposed approach to tackling socioeconomic inequalities in education, which attracted some criticism from stakeholders along with some supporting voices. We considered how this part of the bill could go further and potentially deliver more tangible outcomes. For example, we questioned the wording of the duty whereby education authorities and Scottish ministers are to have due regard to the desirability of reducing inequalities of outcome. We found it somewhat difficult to imagine when an education authority would not consider a reduction in inequality to be desirable and asked the Scottish Government to examine how that provision could be made more effective. In its response, the Government stated that the proposed duties require significantly more than a passive recognition of the need to narrow the attainment gap and indeed the Cabinet Secretary stated that in her opening remarks. I believe that the committee would be grateful, however, if in summing up the minister could be clear about the actions that would be available to the Scottish Government and local authorities to assist those children identified as requiring extra support. The question is, Cabinet Secretary, what can that child and perhaps their families expect to receive as a result of this bill? Another recommendation called for the bill's reporting structure to be as effective as possible. We came to this conclusion for various reasons. For example, some who gave evidence feared a reporting duty could simply amount to an exercise in bureaucracy or divert resources away from more important areas. We were also conscious of the voices demanding a more joined-up approach to tackling the attainment gap. Eastern Bartonshire Council, for example, called for a clearer and more coherent strategy nationally to raise attainment. However, there is certainly no shortage of current initiatives. The policy memorandum alone lists 14 different policies of at least some relevance to the bill's goals. Given that context, we called on the Cabinet Secretary to consider the merit of requiring guidance to be issued before the reporting structure is established. I am therefore pleased to note that the Scottish Government's intention is to lodge amendments to provide for this. I stress, however, that amendments should aim to deliver better outcomes and not just a better process. We have been clear in our report and in our other work on attainment that the Scottish Government should clarify some of the terminology used in discussions. While the societal and political consensus about the need to tackle the attainment gap is positive, it is also likely to lead to intense scrutiny of the specific approaches being adopted. Therefore, terminology must be as clear as possible to allow us to understand what is being proposed and to determine whether success is being delivered. I am therefore encouraged that the Scottish Government's response explains the meaning behind some terms, although various others in the bill, including socio-economic disadvantage and decisions of a strategic nature, will be defined later in statutory guidance. That guidance will aim to support education authorities in identifying those children who must be supported as a result of the new duties. We also expect efforts to be made to ensure that all pupils and parents clearly understand what is being done in their name as we heard views which suggested that this is not always the case. A further key issue is the level of improvement that this bill and the wider work on attainment will deliver and the timescales that will be required. To be fair, however, it may be difficult to quantify the bill's impact in isolation. Nonetheless, it is vital that we know what outcomes are being delivered by other initiatives. One crucial element that will help to influence success is, of course, the amount of funding allocated. Our report asked for detail of the resources required to eliminate the link between disadvantage and educational attainment. We consider that to be a fair request given how much of a strategic priority educational attainment is for the Scottish Government and given the £100 million made available through the attainment Scotland fund. We are therefore somewhat disappointed to note the Scottish Government's view that it would not be realistic to attempt to put a figure on the amount of resources that are required to address the issue. Of course, we fully accept that this is a complex area, but we need to have some indication of the funding calculations involved if we are to know when we will not just see progress, but we will see a solution to this long-standing problem. I wish to raise one other issue before concluding on this part of the bill. There is a very clear and understandable focus on the educational attainment gap arising from socioeconomic inequalities. However, there are all kinds of attainment gaps, particularly those faced by children and young people who are looked after or who have disabilities. We ask the Government whether it would be logical to extend the duty to such groups. The Scottish Government is not seeking to do so now as there are existing protections for other children with low attainment levels. However, I am pleased to report that the Cabinet Secretary has stressed that she remained open-minded about extending this provision. I want to move on now to another major part of the bill, namely the provisions on Gallic education. One of the main criticisms at stage 1, chiefly from Gallic groups, it has to be said, was that those provisions did not go far enough, specifically that they did not introduce an entitlement to Gallic medium education. Rather, the bill proposes a statutory process for local authorities to use when assessing a request from parents for Gallic medium education to be provided in primary schools. Local authorities are not required to provide such education even if they have assessed that sufficient demand and resources exist. They must, however, provide reasons for their decisions. We asked the Scottish Government whether it was still examining how to introduce an entitlement to Gallic medium education where reasonable demand existed. The Government's response is significant as it raises issues that will no doubt be intensely scrutinised at stage 2. In short, ministers said that they intended to lodge amendments to include a presumption in favour of Gallic medium primary education. The minister hinted at that approach in his evidence, but we questioned how a presumption would work in practice given the concerns expressed about a lack of teachers. Indeed, Scottish Government officials themselves acknowledged the difficulties around teacher recruitment, saying probe, certainly. Mary Scanlon. I would agree with me that in order for the presumption to provide Gallic language to operate, we need to understand what reasonable demand is. I think that that goes without saying, but as the Cabinet Secretary has clearly, in response to your earlier intervention, said that the detail of that will be outlined in regulations and in guidance, so I think that that has already been dealt with. The quote that I was going to begin with or go on to from the Government officials was probably one of the main obstacles that we are concerned about. That will be one of the key areas of concern for local authorities looking at the bill. They will think that that is all very well, but can we secure a teacher? I think that that is a reasonable question to put, and the minister himself acknowledged that when he gave evidence to the committee. If there is anything further that the minister can say today about the likely amendment, including any cost implications, I am sure that we would be very interested to hear the Government's view. John Finnie. I am grateful that the member has taken that intervention. Would you accept that it is a chicken-and-egg situation? If there is an endorsement for the presumption of Gallic-mugim education, will that encourage people to move to that sector with an education? I can give you your time back. I absolutely do accept that, Mr Finnie, and I think that this is a welcome step by the Government in moving in this direction. I think that there is an argument among the Gallic community whether or not it goes far enough, but I am sure that the debate we will have in committee at stage 2. There is one further issue around Gallic that members may be interested in discussing. A report noted that the bill treats early learning, primary and secondary education differently and asked for an explanation of the circumstances in which the Scottish Government would make regulations on Gallic early learning and childcare. The Government's response, I should say, notes that Gallic medium education is most effective when provided from a young age. However, early learning and childcare was not included in the bill as it was not the right time to introduce another duty that would impact on a sector that was already undergoing considerable change. Instead, the Scottish Government intends to have discussions about the most appropriate time to bring forward regulations under this power. I now want to briefly highlight two other provisions. First, the committee agreed with the proposal that education authorities should appoint an officer to provide them with advice on their educational functions, although we did note that most authorities already had such a person in post. The report also asked questions about exactly how this role of chief education officer would work in practice, and the Scottish Government's response noted on-going discussions on that matter. I would again therefore be grateful if the minister could provide an update in the summing up. On a separate note, I appreciate the detailed consideration that the Scottish Government has given to our and to stakeholders' comments on the additional support for learning provisions of the bill. They are indeed complex and technical, and I'm sure we'll have a lot to say about those during the stage 2 process. It is a particularly complex area, and I'm glad that the Scottish Government has sought to clear up some of the factual misunderstandings that have been out there, thereby allowing, I believe, a debate to focus more on the substantive policy issues. Presiding Officer, this is a substantial bill with many different provisions, and, as we know, two more are due to be added at stage 2 by the Government. However, I want to conclude by thanking all those who provided evidence to us, to SPICE and to our committee clerks who were very grateful for all of the work that they do to support us. I also want to thank my fellow committee members for their detailed consideration of the bill and, of course, the Scottish Government for its willingness to listen to our views as expressed in our stage 1 report. Thank you. Many thanks. I now call on Ian Gray, 10 minutes or so, please, Mr Gray. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me begin by saying quite clearly that we welcome this bill as a clear signal that the Government wants to tackle the attainment gap in Scottish education. It is unacceptable that it remains the case today that your educational outcomes depend more on your parents' income than any other factor be that ability, hard work or indeed the school you go to. Not only is that inequitable and unfair for the individual child and their life chances, it is a gross squandering of potential and talent which diminishes the future prospects of our society and our nation. Indeed, every child left behind shames every one of us. But this is no council of despair. Other countries do better than us at this. And indeed, our own educational history shows that when we are bold and determined and prepared to invest for the long term, we can make a difference. Earlier this week, we saw the 50th anniversary of the day, October 27th, 1965, when a Labour Secretary of State for Scotland, Willie Ross, signed the memorandum which ended the divisive system of selection at age 11 in Scottish education. That set in motion the comprehensiveisation of our schools, a system fundamentally rooted in equality of opportunity and the valuing of all pupils. On Tuesday at Murray House, a group of educational researchers from Edinburgh University presented their research on the impact of that reform 50 years on. Perhaps their most startling statistic was this. At the introduction of comprehensive schools, 70 per cent of pupils left school with not one single qualification. 70 per cent. Thanks to comprehensive schools and consequent reforms such as raising the school leaving age, standard grades, higher, still and indeed laterally curriculum for excellence, that figure is now only 4 per cent or so. In the 60s, around 18 per cent of pupils achieved at least one higher. By 2013, that figure was 60 per cent or more. Progress has been made. Yet, still today, we know that you are twice as likely to gain the entry qualifications for a top university if your parents are well off, than you are if they are poor. You are far more likely to leave school unable to read or write properly if your family is poor. We know that literacy and numeracy standards are falling, not improving. We know too that the new national replacement for standard grade has led to a fall in both enrolment and attainment for exactly those pupils who gained most from the reforms of recent decades. So we agree with the Scottish Government that the time has come for a concerted effort once again to address the unacceptable achievement and attainment gap in our education system. That is the key purpose and principle behind this bill and we support that. The great difficulty, of course, is finding a way to legislate for such a purpose. We have to avoid the equivalent of legislating for sunny or summers and then asking someone to report on what they have done to deliver it without regard to its effectiveness. We have to avoid what Keir Bloomer and his evidence to the committee characterised as pious thinking masquerading as lawmaking. The truth is that this Government and not only this Government legislated too often to reduce carbon emissions, to provide patient rights, for example, and then failed to comply with their own or our own well-meaning laws. So, in our view, we do require to ensure that the section of the bill on equalities of outcome be strengthened and we will seek to do that at stage 2 as the cabinet secretary has indicated the Government will as well. The requirement of education authorities have due regard to the desirability of reducing inequality of outcomes is simply not strong enough and we agree with the committee that the shared goal of the Parliament requires more than a passive recognition of the need to close the gap. It certainly must require both local authorities and government to report on their successes and outcomes and not only their plans and inputs. We also believe that both authorities and Government must report more frequently than bi-annually and indeed other reporting requirements likely to appear in the bill later, I think, are almost certain to oblige them to do that. The elephant not in the bill at all, of course, is resources. It is well rehearsed that we on this side believe we should commit to a higher tax rate for higher earners and devote these resources to closing the gap. I accept that legislation is not where such a policy would lie but we will explore ways to ensure that the legislation perhaps requires proper consideration of the resources devoted to achieving the purpose of the bill. It is also the case that, while we should hold both government and education authorities to account for closing the attainment gap, the actual changes which will achieve that have to happen in schools, nurseries and indeed communities. Their efforts and results need also to be scrutinised. We will, at stage 2, look to bring forward amendments to ensure obligations in the inspection regime to take account of success in closing the gap. Indeed, both my own leader, Kezia Dugdale and the First Minister have given some indication that they support our reformed inspection regime to this end. If our aspiration and ambition is high enough, of course, we should not just be comparing ourselves with our own past but with the rest of the world too. We will look to amend the legislation to reinstate the Scottish Government, the Scottish education system's participation in international surveys such as PIRLS and TIMS and secure our continuing participation in PISA. We are in no doubt that investing in teachers, early care workers and indeed support staff is the key to improving results in our schools. We support the new headteacher qualification and the extension of GTCS registration requirements to the private sector. We also call for and support the new post of chief education officer to protect a degree of educational expertise in the management of education at a local level. We have seen cause-less comments on that. We believe that the Government needs perhaps to elaborate more on issues such as qualification and seniority in the management structure. Perhaps, in this instance, too much flexibility might not be the best thing, but for us, the principle is certainly correct. We also welcome the sections of the bill on Gaelic medium education and the extension of children's rights. Colleagues will speak more about those in a few minutes. I will say on the section about extending children's rights. We do have concerns regarding how those rights are dealt with in the bill. We note the comments of many of those who gave evidence to the committee on this in support of the principle of the change. We do note that the cabinet secretary has already responded in part to some of those concerns and hope that this can be resolved at stage 2. Presiding Officer, this bill is largely about what we and parents and pupils can expect from our education system. Our view is therefore also an opportunity to deal with the anomaly that current legislation defines how many days a school should open, but not how much teaching time a pupil or parent can expect to benefit from. In primary schools in particular, this has been an issue in recent years and we do intend to bring forward amendments to explore the definition of what constitutes a minimum school week, at least in primary schools, in order to provide clarity for parents as to what their entitlement to education for their children really means. Finally, it is unfortunate— and this is something that the convener of the committee referred to— and rightly, I think, it is unfortunate that perhaps the most important section of this bill is not yet in it at all, and therefore we cannot really properly discuss its proposals. That is, of course, the national improvement framework that the Government is currently consulting on. The cabinet secretary knows our views that we support a change to the current position where almost all local authorities use different testing, particularly in primary school, but she also knows that we do not support a return to league tables and high-risk national testing, which leads, of course, to problems such as teaching to the test. I acknowledge that the improvement framework is out for consultation at the moment, and note that there has been some concern expressed around that the consultation is not functioning particularly well. An article in tests this week, for example, suggested that parents were not engaging with the process. Nonetheless, we expect the Scottish Government to be as good as it is worth and to bring forward a framework that will, at that point, have support from teachers, parents and educationalists, which improves the data that we have to drive policy and to measure our success, yet avoids the introduction of high-stakes national testing. As they say, we shall see when the framework comes forward. In the meantime, we shall, with pleasure, support the principles of this legislation this evening. Many thanks. I now call on Mary Scanlon. The seven minutes are so, Ms Scanlon. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased to speak on the Education Scotland Bill today, but put on record that we do have some very serious concerns. One issue that we can all agree on is that we all want to do our best to ensure that no child is left behind in our education system, and every child, regardless of background, is given an equal chance to fulfil their potential. So, I think that it's good to start on a positive note. I would also like to thank the convener, Stuart Maxwell, who did his best to gain consensus on this bill. When that was not possible, he ensured that the views of all the members of the committee were stated in the stage 1 report. We recognise that significant amendments and further consultation, sometimes just initial consultation, are essential in order to pass a meaningful and effective piece of legislation, and I appreciate that the committee has already started this process. Paragraph 6 in the committee report, and I quote, if consultation is not undertaken in advance of a bill's publication, the Scottish Government should explain why this is the case. Well, reasons why consultation did not take place is not in the Government's response, and I do think, after so many years of this Parliament, that it is quite unacceptable that the Government brings forward provisions in a bill stating that every local authority must have a director of education, all teachers must register with the GTC, with no consultation. There may be merit or there may be significant disadvantage in both those provisions. We really don't know, although we have heard some or evidence. The other issue, as Ian Gray has just said, is that the committee is having to take evidence on the national improvement framework, which is absolutely critical to the attainment debate and into the headship, after the committee report and the Government's response. I think that the other point is, the Government has to be absolutely clear whether it is aiming to narrow the gap on attainment or close the gap. This is fundamental in terms of clarity and what they expect local authorities to report on. I note that closing the gap is not used in the Government's response, so I thought, that's fine, we're getting clear. When Liz Smith asked a question earlier, the Cabinet Secretary responded by twice mentioning closing the gap. We all need to know whether it is narrowing the gap or closing the gap. The inspection process in Scotland is far from perfect, with headteachers having often to second guess what the inspectors are looking for. This is an opportunity to get clarity in place at the outset. I think that that would benefit all of us. In terms of reporting on their duty to reduce people's inequalities of outcome, local authorities are having to have due regard to the desirability of reducing inequalities of outcome. We really shouldn't wonder why someone like Keir Bloomer described this legislation as pious thinking masquerading as lawmaking. I acknowledge the Government's response, stating that attainment, and I quote, denotes educational performance and the acquisition of the valuable skills, knowledge and attributes needed to succeed in life. Well, an inspector coming into school trying to get a measurement against that. A little bit nebulous, I would say, as a concept against which to measure success or failure. So, as the committee rightly points out, the Government must ensure there's a clear understanding of exactly what is required for local authorities but also for teachers and head teachers who I have no doubt all want to deliver the improvement we're looking for. The committee report also states, it would be in no one's best interest for reports simply to list policies and programmes that have been adopted. Even on the 100 million attainment funding, we're still looking for an outcome measure for this. In the Highlands and Islands, there are very few, if any, designated areas of multiple deprivation. That's why the figures say 4 per cent of people from deprived backgrounds go to the United Nations. That is not the case. In a rural area, we have poverty next door to those with plenty. So, if this attainment money depends on measuring deprivation through the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, it doesn't work in remote and rural areas. So, something more appropriate to rural areas needs to be found to identify children, whatever background they're from, who need support and help with attainment. And we constantly hear the early years of the most critical part of a child's development. I read the Government's response. I heard the point that the convener made about there are changes in the early years at the moment. But please don't let it fall off the agenda. We know how critically important that that is. Then we get to Gaelic. Despite 11 out of 26 sections of the bill being devoted to Gaelic, what we have is a process steeped in legislation about assessing the need for Gaelic and how to respond to parental requests. Well, I don't think Dr Allyn will be dancing in the streets of Stornoway when they hear about this. Because can I just finish this if you don't mind? The SNP manifesto in 2007 stated, a guarantee in law the right to a Gaelic medium education at primary level where reasonable demand exists. In 2011, the SNP again would examine an entitlement to Gaelic medium education where reasonable demand exists. As I've said, we don't know what reasonable demand is. I commend Salma Rostig and others who have clearly set out this issue in their briefing paper for us today. Dr Allyn. Thank you. I will try not to dance, but in referring to the member's points, I was quite rightly grilled about this in committee when detail was sought. What I can certainly say and ask if the member is content to acknowledge is that on the definitions of reasonable demand, much of that is actually set out on the face of the bill and others will of course be set out in guidance. In terms of entitlement, will the member also acknowledge that the Government has been very clear in what we've said recently that there will be forthcoming amendments at stage 2 that will create the presumption of action by local authorities to create Gaelic medium units? I would have hoped that that means that we're not very far apart from each other in our view on that. Mary Scanlon. I think that we should all respect the views of Salma Rostig on this issue and I have quoted from their paper if they're concerned. I think that, as a member for the Highlands and Islands, it's my duty to raise that. My final point relates to the sudden desire for a chief education officer. Well, where is the evidence? Where was the consultation? I understand that it was suggested by one person and the Government's response refers to legislation relating to education. But we can equally say there should be a designated chief officer for planning. Plenty of legislation there. Housing, social care, licensing. They're all steeped in legislation. And even the policy memorandum states that the discussion on this issue— I'm actually over my time— was only with one group. And I just finally, Presiding Officer, I agree with COSLA when they say that this measure usurps local democratic accountability. And I think that it's incumbent on all of us to respect the democratically elected members of our local governments across Scotland. Thank you very much. I turn to the open debate now. And it's speeches of six minutes please with a little bit of time at the moment for interventions that may change. And I call George Adam to be followed by Kara Hilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer, it's my belief that this bill can set the foundations for raising attainment in Scotland. This will not happen overnight. And it will not be easy for us to close that gap completely. But the most important things in life never are easy. So I welcome the bill at stage one and I look forward to working with colleagues on the committee as it progresses. There are a number of aspects to this bill that I'd like to discuss in more detail. Most importantly, the bill will promote equity in education by placing a duty in councils to have regard to the need to narrow the attainment gap when exercising their education functions. Ensure that councils have professional advice on provisions of their education functions by ensuring that all councils have an appropriately qualified experienced chief education officer. And I support the idea of a chief education officer as someone who worked previously within a local authority and understanding how local authorities are working. And it is similar to having a chief if you only look at some of the education authorities, you can see that many are merging social work and education together, so it only makes sense that you do have an educationalist there as the main officer. But ADES obviously stated that they welcomed the Education Scotland bill and the increased focus it plays and the need to deliver a better, more equitable education system for Scotland. The action being taken by the Scottish Government to address the disparity in outcomes faced by pupils from disadvantaged communities is positive and is their commitment to ensuring that each and every local authority has a chief education officer. But poverty is one of the major challenges that we face as we seek to bridge the attainment gap. It's clear that the Scottish Government is committed to doing all it can in its power to eradicate poverty in Scotland, but it's not acceptable that poverty can be used as an excuse for failure or for a young person being disadvantaged from birth. An additional 100,000 Scottish children will be living in poverty by 2020 because of UK welfare reforms and this is before the next round of cuts are due. But we must see school education as one of the most powerful tools we have at our disposal to help overcome the disadvantages associated with poverty. We must ensure that the education system can adapt to career paths and work patterns of the future, and that is a major theme of the Scottish Government's on-going work in developing the young workforce. The challenge before us is great, but it's one that we must address. The recession and the deep public spending cuts that have followed have created pressures for Scottish Government, for local government and for many families, but the fact still remains that education in Scotland has made progress. In every part of the country, Scotland has good schools, good teachers and our young people are good learners. Standards have risen and are continuing to rise. That is a testament to the hard work of our local authorities, the contribution of many other individuals and organisations, but most of all it is a huge tribute to the dedication of teachers, parents and students across the country. One of the issues that we have had when we have been discussing some of the aspects of this as well is how important parents are in the whole process when we are talking about attainment, to ensure that we get parents to be involved from regardless of background with their child's education and ensure that they can push that forward. The introduction of the curriculum for excellence has been a major step forward and it gives teachers more flexibility, provides a broader education for young people, sets higher standards for achievement than ever before. The new national improvement framework will help to close the gap in attainment and ensure that all children are being equipped with the skills they need. This year's ambitious programme for government put education at the very heart of the Scottish Government's efforts to make Scotland a fairer country. The Education Scotland Bill has a key role to play in that. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said, that improving school attainment is arguably the single most important objective in this programme of government. My interpretation of the new national assessments would be that they developed in partnership with local government teachers and parents and they will replace the variety of different assessments that are already currently being used by local authorities. That will not add to the workload of teachers. That is not an arrow in the curriculum or forcing teachers to teach to test. I do not believe that this will be a return to the bad old days of national testing, but a focused look at the needs of individual pupils. The Education Bill proposes measures aimed at narrowing the attainment gap and further progresses the Scottish Government's improvement agenda, tackling educational inequalities at the heart of this SNP government's agenda, ensuring that all our children and young people get that chance and opportunity, regardless of where they live. I also welcome the fact that the attainment challenge will draw on the experience of the London challenge that helped transform school performance in that city. I also look at other international experiences. As we all know, the challenge will be backed by an attainment fund of more than £100 million to drive forward improvements in educational outcomes in Scotland's most disadvantaged communities. We are all aware that the fund will initially target schools with the biggest concentration of households in deprived areas identified through the Scottish index of multiple deprivation. I was also heartened to hear that Dr Bill Maxwell in evidence this week at the Committee of Education Scotland said that he believed that 30 of the 32 attainment advisers are already in place in local government. In the future, he would say that they would be the people who would be focusing on where resource would go as we try to bridge the government attainment in the future. I welcome that as well. The bill at stage 1 is welcome because it provides us with a direction of travel with regard to closing the educational attainment gap in Scotland completely. As I have already stated, this will not happen overnight and it will be difficult, but for me and I believe the people we represent, this provides our children with a better opportunity to succeed in life, providing them with the tools that they need for their future. Closing the attainment gap completely might be ambitious, it might be an ambitious goal, but it is one that we must all get behind and support. Many thanks. I now call Cara Hilton to be followed by Gil Paterson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Tackling the attainment gap in our education system has got to be our number 1 priority. I am pleased that there is recognition across the political divide that we have got to do a lot more to end the educational inequality that continues to undermine the life chances of thousands of children and young people right across Scotland. It can never be right that a children's opportunities in life are shaped more than their family background by their talent, their hard work or their efforts. Education should always be a route out of poverty and it should enable every single child to reach their full potential, but the gap between the rich and poor in Scotland often means that rather than unlocking potential, inequality is reinforced and reproduced. That is why, while Scottish Labour will always hold the Scottish Government to account on its failings, we want to work together to get this right and ensure that we really do make a difference for all of Scotland's children. Turning to the provisions of the bill, for Scottish Labour welcomes and supports general principles of the bill, we do also feel that it is the best opportunity as it stands and does need a lot of strengthening. The cabinet secretary will be pleased to hear that, for once, I am not going to devote my speech to go on about the fantastic achievements in Fife in closing the gap and increasing literacy levels. I know that she is aware of the success and I hope that the Scottish Government will learn from it. Ian Gray has outlined a number of improvements that Scottish Labour will be seeking to make during the bill's progress, and one of the most important issues that we believe needs to be addressed is the school week, and we will be bringing forward amendments to this at stage 2. Scottish Labour believes that every parent in Scotland should have a guarantee that their primary school child will have a minimum of 25 hours teaching a week. That is a proposal that has the support of the EIS and the support of many thousands of parents. Research by Reform Scotland has revealed that the teaching time that primary school children in Scotland receives can vary by up to 149 hours per year, depending on where they live. In the past few years, parents in Dunfermline, across Fife, in Renfrewshire, Falkirk, the Highlands and West Dunbartonshire have all been told by their local councils that cuts to the school week could be on the horizon. The sheer scale of the budget challenges that local authorities are dealing with and the fact that education takes up such a large proportion of the council budgets mean that local authorities are increasingly having to make difficult decisions. Last winter, for example, parents in Fife were told that one of those options on the table was to reduce the primary school week by 10 per cent. Parents were obviously outraged at this proposal, and my email inbox is full to the brim with many hundreds of emails for angry, worried and concerned parents, angry at the potential effect on the children's learning, worried about the impact and the challenges that every mum and dad already faces in balancing school, work, home and childcare, and concerned that their kids would suffer not only now but in the future, with richer families able to make up the difference by paying tutors to plug the gap while the poorest children and children with additional support needs left to fall further behind. To quote one parent who wrote to me, by taking away 10 per cent on my child's school week, you will potentially affect him for the rest of his life. He will never regain that lost teaching time and those lost learning experiences. Another wrote, I have friends in different areas of Scotland who are not facing their child losing 75 hours of teaching a year. That works out at 525 lost hours in their seven years at primary school. Why should my child lose out? In five parents won their fight, and five councillor agreed not to cut school hours for now, but they've warned parents that radical changes will need to be made to address this 75 million budget gap. At 45 per cent of that overall budget, education will face its share of cuts. Fife is not alone in having to think the unthinkable in school hours. Cabinet Secretary, can I have the cabinet secretary's microphone please? Maybe Ms Hill can't answer this question just now that it's maybe unfair of me to ask in advance of our lodging at stage 2 amendments. When she says that she wants to guarantee parents that every child will have 25 hours of teaching time, I want to clarify whether she's talking about 25 hours of children's time in school or whether she's talking about teaching time. Bearing in mind, teachers are contracted to work a maximum of 22 hours teaching time. Cary Helton. 25 hours for children. I'm talking about 25 hours for each child taught by a teacher. Obviously, there will be debates to be had with the EIS who are actually supporting these amendments, but given the budget challenges that every local authority faces, I think there's a real danger that more parents across Scotland will face the same battle that parents in Fife, parents in Falkirk, parents in Weston-Bartonshire have already had to face. Scottish Labour believes that it can never be right that our children pay the price of cuts by cutting their time in school. We believe that every parent or carer should have the right to expect a minimum of hours of teaching per week when they send their child to school. At a time when we're looking to take more measures to close the attainment gap, when we're faced with a scandal of more than half of our poorest children leaving school unable to read or write properly, cutting the time that our young people have to learn in the classroom will only ever be a backward step. Also, when you look at the Scottish Government it's looking hopefully to extend free school provision possibly to up to 30 hours a week for three and four-year-olds. At the same time, how can the Scottish Government sit back and see five, six, seven-year-olds their time in school cut? I hope that that is something that the Cabinet Secretary will look at. Right now, there's absolutely nothing in legislation to guarantee our kids a minimum number of hours in the classroom. I do think that this has got to change. There's a real prospect that financially motivated cuts to our children's learning will be back on the table unless action is to be taken to protect the school week. We heard a lot in the chamber yesterday in the debate about higher education governance about the importance of listening to trade unions and I hope therefore that the views of the EIS and the fears and concern of parents and grandparents will be taken into account and that we can act to protect the time our kids have to learn in school and to ensure that every child in school and Scotland has an equal right to equality education. I was going to turn to the other provisions of the bill but I can see that I've run out of time, unfortunately. If you wish to do it briefly, I could give you a little bit. The Scottish Labour will be supporting the bill at stage 1 but we do want to see it improved, we want to see it strengthened and we want to work together across political divide to ensure that every child in Scotland has the best opportunity and the best chance to succeed. Thank you Gil Paterson to be followed by Liam McArthur. Thanks very much, Presiding Officer. First, I take the opportunity to commend the Scottish Government on bringing forward this bill. It shows the Government indeed the SNP's commitment to education in Scotland's children something as an SNP MSP I'm very proud of. Presiding Officer, I read in a briefing and I'll quote, we want to be able to say with confidence and with evidence that there is no place, a better place in the world to be educated than here in Scotland. Indeed, that's something that's worth while achieving. Therefore, a child born today in one of our most deprived communities should, by the time he or she leaves school, have the same chance of going to university as a child born in one of our most affluent communities. We know there is still a significant and unacceptable attainment gap within and between schools in different parts of Scotland. I know this more than most. Indeed, in my constituency of Clydebank and Mulgyi, the gap is geographical as well as educational. For example, when it comes to higher school leavers from the most deprived, 20 per cent of the areas in Scotland which includes part of Clydebank currently do half as well as leavers from the most affluent areas such as Mulgyi and Bearsden again in my constituency. While the Scottish Government initiatives like the raising attainment to all programmes are starting to make a positive impact and we are proud of what we have been achieving, more needs to be done. To many of our young people we do not have life chances narrowed by circumstances outwith their control. However, it is clear from the First Minister's speech in February that from the introduction of this bill and tackling educational inequality is at the centre of the Government's agenda. One aspect of tackling the inequality is the new Scottish attainment challenge which will draw on the experiences of the London challenge that I will talk about earlier on by my colleague George Arden. I was pleased that the challenge was backed by an attainment Scotland fund where one of the first beneficiaries was primary schools in Weston-Bartonshire which covers part of my constituency along with six other authorities. Weston-Bartonshire was targeted initially to contain schools with some of the biggest concentrations of households in deprived areas. Weston-Bartonshire alone will see £4 million over four years. This money will focus on improving literacy, numeracy, health and wellbeing with the objective to ensuring that all primary age pupils have the best art in life. However, the Scottish Government's objectives to ensuring children have the best art in life do not start at primary school. The Government recognises that improvements have to start in children's early years. High-quality early learning and childcare particularly benefits those with the lowest incomes and will also support parents to work, train or study into employment and out of poverty. The annual funded entitlement of early learning and childcare has increased to 600 hours, a 45 per cent increase in hours for three and four-year-olds since 2007. This is helping around 120,000 children per year and saving farmers up to £707 per child per year. This expanded entitlement is being rolled out to the most disadvantaged two-year-olds reaching most vulnerable 15 per cent of that age group from August 2014 and around a quarter of all two-year-olds in 2015-16. We have pledged that the SNP's 2016 manifesto will set out a plan to increase childcare provision by the end of the next Parliament from 16 hours a week to 30 hours a week. When the UK Government cuts to tax credits and welfare are hurting so many households, the work that we are doing to support children and families matters hugely. We need to overcome the barriers of poverty, not use it as an excuse. However, we can't underplay the role poverty plays. An additional 100,000 Scottish children will be living in poverty by 2020 because of the UK welfare reforms. That is before the next round of cuts in 2017-18. That is why it is vital to tackle poverty and use the Scottish Parliament's new welfare powers wisely when we get them. That is why we are supporting parents through investments and more health visitors for young children and through early reading projects such as Bookbug. It is why our major expansion of early learning and childcare is one of the best investments that we can make as a country. With a majority Conservative Government and power in Westminster, there is worse to come, I fear. The Scottish Government will do all it can to minimise impact but only have a limited set of powers which will do it and, of course, the budget that goes along with it will not withstand very much more stress on it. I wish to conclude, Presiding Officer, by once again commending the Scottish Government, this legislation outlines clear expectations for local and national Governments in the process of addressing educational inequality while introducing reforms in a range of other key areas. That is a welcome place of legislation for my constituency and for Scotland as a whole. I look forward to its continued passage through the Parliament. Thank you very much. I now call Liam McArthur to be followed by Tick Brody. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I start by thanking all those who have helped the committee in our stage 1 consideration of the bill, those who have provided written evidence as well as, of course, the clerks, spies and others. There has been a wide range of engagement on what is a wide-ranging bill. At this stage of the Parliament, it would appear that the Scottish Government is effectively emptying the fridge and we have a couple of ingredients still to come in terms of the national improvement framework and the headship qualifications. I do not think that that is an unusual thing to happen at this stage of a Parliament. I think that where I would have concerns, and I think that the convener quite rightly alluded to this, is in the lack of prior consultation on some of the key aspects of the bill. I think that it has not been helpful for those who are directly affected by those provisions, but frankly it has not been terribly helpful for the committee in terms of our scrutiny. In a Parliament that does not have a revising chamber, the more that can be front-loaded in terms of consultation and the preparation of legislation, it is so much the better. The registration, obviously, is the GTCS registration of teachers in the independent sector. There were periods where negotiations between the GTCS and representatives of independent schools appear to be taking place in the committee before our very eyes. I think that it is to be welcomed that the GTCS appear to be taking a more pragmatic approach to this and that some of the concerns that were initially raised with us appear to have now dissipated, but it is not necessarily a comfortable place for any of us to find ourselves. Similarly, the issue of the statutory requirement for local authorities to have a chief education officer appeared to have no prior mention, far less any consultation. The rationale for it appeared to change over the course of our consideration of the bill from something that was a reflection of a widespread and immediate problem that needed addressing to something that was more of a safeguard. I think that the Cabinet Secretary and her evidence to the committee suggested initially that it would be more than advisory. I think that all of this creates the impression that this is an attempt by the Government to micromanage, to offer up a solution to a problem that does not necessarily exist. I do not really accept that it is not prescriptive and I think that it is something that at stage 2 we will have to revisit and potentially remove. An area that was very well signposted in advance was the SNP commitment on an entitlement to Gallic language education. That has been, as others have mentioned, comprehensively watered down. We now see this being a presumption, though not a right to Gallic media education. From my perspective, I think that the idea of having a defined process for considering parental requests has a value and I think will indeed be helpful. I have concerns that in areas such as the one I represent where there is no tradition of Gallic speaking, that there is a danger that any right and entitlement could see resources, which are already stretched in terms of education provision, being deflected away from other priorities, including one that I know close to the minister's heart in terms of raising awareness and use of the ortony dialect. The provisions that appear in the bill are clearly not in keeping with the manifesto promise. Ministers have no one else to blame but themselves for that. I think that, as Mary Scanlon indicated, there is a degree of disquiet within the Gallic community as a result. If there are key themes that exist within this rather eclectic bill, they clearly fall into the categories of the inequalities of outcome and also the extension of children's rights. In relation to the first, as others have suggested, the battle to close the ornar of the attainment gap has been a priority over successive Administrations. None of us, I think, would accept that we have made nearly enough progress and that this must remain a priority. I have no difficulty with us stating and restating that here. Ian Gray was right in drawing attention to our priorities. They tend to be judged by where the resources are going. Again, I repeat my concern, that if the objective is, as a number of SNP speakers have indicated, to close the attainment gap completely, I struggle to understand how, where you are seeing poverty amidst plenty in every single local authority area in the country, an attainment challenge fund that is targeted at a limited number of schools, a limited number of local authorities and ignores those in other parts of the country, such as the one that I represent, is hardly a way of achieving that objective. In terms of the provisions in the bill, it is not entirely clear at this stage what the bill will achieve. Again, I think that the convener very fairly set out some of the concerns that we have heard in that regard. I think that the challenge to us at stage 2 is to see where and how we can make this tangible change deliverable through this bill. I think that a number of witnesses, through evidence, have given us some ideas. I think that in the briefings for this debate, the Child Poverty Action Group, Inclusion Scotland, Enable and others, I think have made some helpful suggestions, but also I think that drawing on the point that I made earlier, that closing the attainment gap for those in poverty is not and shouldn't be the sole priority. There are those such as disabled children whose needs have a strong claim to be addressed under this provision. Political statements are valuable, legislation can reinforce this. However, without more substance, I think that there is a danger that we bear out the words of Cure Bloomer that this is simply pious thinking, masquerading as lawmaking. Turning to the additional support for lending provisions, I think that this is another area where inadequate prior consultation is taking place. I very much welcome the extension of rights to children with capacity under the ASL legislation. As Inclusion Scotland and the Children's Commissioner point out, the bill creates several barriers to children being able to exercise their rights. Rather than work from the presumption of capacity at the age of 12, in line with the 1991 act, the bill requires children to undergo an assessment of capacity by the education authority or a tribunal even where their support needs are not related to any cognitive impairment. The Scottish Government insisted that the Children's Human Rights Commissioner, Inclusion Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society, Government Law Centre and others were laboring under a mishaprehension. I know that there have been further discussions between Government officials and some of those that we are raising concerns. The indication that there will be stage 2 amendments brought forward is welcome, but they are clearly not sufficient in terms of us meeting our human rights obligations. Scottish Liberal Democrats will support this bill at boats this evening, but the lack of prior consultation in some poorly considered posturing means that there is much work to do at stage 2 to make this bill fit for purpose. Thank you. Now, Conchick Brody to be followed by Ken Macintosh. Six minutes or thereby, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Just as yesterday, I am delighted to speak in another education debate. This time on the Education Scotland bill, I would like to congratulate the convener because there have been, in the course of the committee, meeting some difficulties in terminology. Will your mates once said that education is not the filling of a pail but the lighting of a fire? That is true in itself at all times, but it is timely as far as we are concerned here in Scotland. The fire has been lit, further lit, by a Government-stated and communicated ambition where every child across Scotland, irrespective of background or parental income, should have the opportunity to achieve his or her full potential. The bill is, if you like, one of the flames and its general principles deserve support, but it is or should be about why and what and certainly about how and when. The bill's policy memorandum is perhaps less clear than it might be to help us on some of the points, but as I mentioned earlier, that will change. That said, the aspiration is right, the aspiration to reduce inequalities of outcomes, and let us hold that just for a moment as we issue the blight of targets. These are only right at one moment in time. Continuous improvement objective should be the basis of any measurement of how an operation works in this case in our educational operation in Scotland. The bill goes some way to creating a generally shared vision of the required attainment of each child's potential in a reduction, a reduction in the current gap between the attainment of those who come from well-supported families, not always those who are well-funded, well-supported families to those who are more disadvantaged in terms of finance and, importantly, support. Just as we seek, in other policy matters, to reduce the income gap, the socioeconomic gaps across our society demand a much stronger legislation in other areas. One of the important by-products, if not the most important, certainly, is to narrow our educational attainment gap to create a learning fulfilment, a life fulfilment. It is not about how many people enter universities. It should be allowing people to achieve their full potential and to do that without fear or favour about the background of finance and support from which they come. Legislation of itself will not bring about the desire change in this area only, but the bill, as amended, can and does have resonance and impact. Communication can, however, aid all those with an interest in involvement in education, local authorities, teachers, parents, families, students and all have to understand the Government's clear aspiration on reducing that gap in learning and achieving the fairness and fulfilment that I have just mentioned. There cannot be, there must not be, any equivocation in the wording in the bill as criticised by some organisations as we amend it. There has to be a sharing of the Government's ambitions unequivocally and the clarity of terminology as to why and what we are planning to do and how and when we are going to do it. The terminology must be very clear to all, to all in the education arena as to how we intend to reduce the gap. Clarity and reporting of outcomes. I stress outcomes of continuous improvement outcomes year on year behoves the Government and certainly local authorities to ensure that those reporting mechanisms that follow it are clearly understood. The capture of initiatives in those reports, initiatives which contributed or hopefully would contribute more to narrowing the gap by an individual school or an individual locality, an individual authority should be disseminated indeed to other schools across Scotland and to other authorities as an example of best practice for possible shadow implementation. A strategy of good operation properly disseminated to achieve that improvement in outcomes. Stuart Maxwell referred to Easton Barcher's representatives who said to the committee the request to be a clearer and more coherent strategy nationally to raising attainment. Clear initiatives, clear strategy, a clear and cohesive national communication strategy on good and bad practice are all essential for us to make sure that the fire is fully lit. The recommendation of the committee that the Government should explain the extent to which relevant education authorities will be expected to report on outcomes arising from, for example, the attainment fund could be a very good starting point. Presiding Officer, it would be quite wrong to suggest that in general terms no progress has been made in schools, but nothing stands still. We have to believe and act as if on this very important agenda it is impossible, impossible for us to fail. The raising attainment for all, the £100 million attainment fund, plus all of the other initiatives, all are rungs in the education ladder of attainment and so along those less advantaged to climb the ladder to close the gap on those that are higher up. The bill gives us a leg up to proposing measures and reports on improvement outcomes to close the attainment gap. To do that, I repeat, we have to adopt and embrace wholeheartedly the changes in the education bill so that we focus on all of our energies in not on addressing the old but on building the new. I would like to touch on a couple of aspects of the bill that I made today, including briefly about Gallic medium education and additional support for learning, but I want to begin, if I can, by emphasising that Scottish Labour has long recognised and will always champion the power of education to transform lives and to improve our communities, especially for those who come from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. That is why we have welcomed the bill and it is a very important issue for those who come from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. That is why we have welcomed the bill and the implicit acknowledgement by the SEP Government that they could have and should have done more, far sooner, to tackle the attainment gap. For too many children in Scotland, their talent, their abilities, their hard work and even the school they attend is not the determining factor in shaping their quality of life or their future prospects. Recent research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation concluded that when a child from a low-income household starts primary school, there are an average of 13 months behind in terms of vocabulary and 10 months behind in terms of problem-solving ability. That is damaging to them as individuals as well as unacceptable to us as a society. The link between socio-economic background and educational achievement is neither new nor a surprise to us. Just as we, in fact, my colleague Neil Findlay, MSP, has published an analysis that reveals how health and wealth also go hand-in-hand and calling for strong leadership to tackle this gap, too. The point being that, alongside the bill before us today and the specific educational measures that we can take, SNP ministers need to draw up and implement an effective anti-poverty strategy. Railing against the Westminster cuts and welfare reforms is simply not enough. We need to use the power that we have. The SNP has been in power for eight years now, more than eight years, and we have to use the powers over housing, over health as well as education to make a real difference in reducing inequality. Turning to the bill itself, we can unite around the common aim of narrowing the attainment gap, but it really matters how we translate that good intention into practice. It matters that we take an evidence-led approach. For example, much of the debate surrounding educational outcomes or school performance looks at the difference between schools, the league tables published by the newspapers every year being one reflection of that focus, and the cost of property in high-performing school catchment areas being another. Perhaps a more helpful focus would be on outcomes within a school. We know that, even within those schools regarded as the best performing in terms of pupil achievement or attainment, the difference between pupils from prosperous or deprived backgrounds can still be quite marked. It is my understanding and experience, however, that some schools are better at narrowing that gap than others. In my own education authority, for example, St Nynion's rightly attracts plaudits for its ethos, the record-breaking achievements of its pupils and more. St Luke's in Barhead is similarly impressive with an intake that, measured by the numbers on free school meals or clothing grants, for example, is clearly less well-off. I'm not trying, and I certainly don't want to make iniquitous comparisons, and certainly not between two fantastic schools such as St Nynion and St Luke's, but I would like us to learn from the evidence. I would like to know what works, what is the highest and added value, what schools are most successful at overcoming disadvantage within their own communities. If we're willing to look at evidence-led approaches, there are many examples in our midst or on our doorstep. The London challenge approach being one, the slightly more controversial teach first being another. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation pointed out, this bill does help to put poverty clearly on the educational agenda. However well-intentioned it may be, what really matters is how we put it into practice, how we measure success, how we compare schools, how we gather and learn from the evidence. On a very practical level, Scottish Labour believes that if the attainment gap is to be bridged, legislation is certainly not enough. It's teachers who make the real difference. The Scottish Government needs to offer financial support to provide more teachers and to reform the school inspection system to reach this end. Fine words, however well meant, are simply not enough. I want to turn now, if I can, to the proposals on the bill to promote Gallic medium education. First of all to say that I'm fully supportive of any measures which help us to protect and promote the Gallic language in Scotland. As members will know, the Gallic Language Act passed by this Parliament some 10 years ago now marked a critical point in our country's attitude and treatment of Gallic. For the first time ever, it secured the status of the language in Scotland and it was hoped, pointed the way to slowing, halting and then reversing the long-term decline in Gallic usage and the numbers of Gallic speakers. It has undoubtedly helped to do just that, but it is also true to say that if we are ever to secure a vibrant future for the language, the answer must lie in Gallic medium education and the number of new Gallic learners. Now there's still much ignorance, antipathy and worse towards Gallic across much of Scotland from people who see it of little relevance to their lives or heritage and I've no wish to force Gallic on anyone, but if we do not take active steps to support the language, not just passive measures but positive action, there is no doubt that the language will indeed die out and this bill is a step in the right direction, but it is a very tentative step indeed. Born of Gallic, common appearance, sole morostig, they've all asked and many more, they've all asked why not take the step from assessing parental demand to creating entitlement and the minister, the deputy minister, is saying that there's a fine example of a Gallic learner himself, so why will he say that it's in the SNP manifesto? Dr Allan. All I really want to say is what I said earlier on to Ms Scanlon which is that to answer your question we are bringing forward amendments which I think seek to cheer exactly what you're talking about. The amendments are about a presumption, a presumption is not an entitlement and the promise in the SNP manifesto was for an entitlement in law. So it's not my, it's your promise just my ask. And even if the minister can't answer that particular query, the question comes around again of the practical measures that we need to face up to. There is a shortage of enough sufficient Gallic teachers, barely enough to cope at the moment, and we need more to grow the language. Finally, if I may Presiding Officer, just to turn to additional support for learning, I particularly want to emphasise the submission from Enable Scotland and quoting from them directly and it's something that I'll point the convener made earlier, socio-economic circumstances are not the only reason for widening it and taming gap. Disability is a key factor. We could use this bill to not just emphasise mainstreaming but inclusion. Sometimes children with disabilities and learned disabilities are in a mainstream school but they're not included. What we could do is make sure that parents and children themselves, their views are taken into account when assessing that choice and this bill gives us that opportunity. I call Colin Beattie to be followed by Jane Baxter. It's been well established that there's a clear connection between socio-economic status and school attainment levels. Scotland's education system has seen much improvement in recent years. In my own constituency we see a 7% increase in school leavers going to positive destinations in Midlothian and an 8% increase in East Lothian over the last five years. With a nearly 20% increase in students staying on in school through six years since 2007 and over 14,000 fewer primary 1 students in classes larger than 25 students a number that's well down from 2006. 91.7% of school leavers are now in work, education or other training and there's been a 3% increase in Scottish students accepted into universities. Those improvements are definitely encouraging to see but we can't allow ourselves to grow complacent. With the increasing imposition of austerity measures it's now more important than ever that we ensure that every child has a good start in life and high educational attainment is a clear root out of deprivation for many. In February I shared statistics on the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reporting that as early as five years old children from low income backgrounds are 13 months behind their counterparts from high income households in their vocabulary development and 10 months behind them in problem solving. Those disparities only become more evident as children progress through school with pupils aged 12 to 14 from better off areas doing twice as well in numeracy skills as those the same age from low income areas. This inequality continues as students from poorer areas still tend to leave school earlier than those from more well off regions. By adulthood low attainers are three times more likely to be unemployed than those who are achieved highly in school. Unfortunately it's often the students from the most deprived backgrounds who are less likely to have been among more high achieving students being only one third as likely to continue on to higher education and thus twice as likely to be earning substantially less than those students from higher income backgrounds. The socioeconomic circumstances of a student's parents evidently have a substantial influence and believe in less privileged backgrounds and this reinforces a pattern of low attainment in these children trapping them in a vicious circle. The proposed Education in Scotland bill recognises the dangers of this cycle and endeavours to solve them by bridging the educational attainment gap. By making the issue of in the words of the bill the inequalities outcome based on socioeconomic disadvantage and necessary consideration for education authorities when making decisions and emphasising their powers the education bill will hold ministers and authorities accountable for the welfare and progress of even the most disadvantaged students while keeping those involved focused on improving overall attainment. The provisions made in the bill for consultation, advice and support on questions pertaining to the attainment gap will give ministers and educational authorities a wide field of information to consider and under this bill it will be the duty of the educational authorities to consult head teachers, pupils and their parents and any relevant voluntary organisations as well as to take into account the advice of the Scottish ministers before taking any steps to change functions relating to school education. The Scottish ministers in turn will be expected to consult the education authorities, the parents of the pupils and any other relevant organisations before making their decisions. This network of consultation will give a voice to all parties that stand to be affected and will inform authorities of the many facets to their decisions, ultimately allowing them to have a more complete picture of the effect of their actions. This complete picture will make tackling the attainment gap more efficient and more effective when pupils, teachers and parents have a space to directly give their feedback on what processes work well or what they need changed. Authorities can know sooner and more clearly how they can best help all students to make the most of their education. It will also keep the education authorities and their responsibilities to the needs and expectations of all parties involved. The education bill will also hold education authorities and Scottish ministers accountable to their goals in reducing the educational attainment gap through mandatory reports to be filed every two years. Under this provision the education authorities will report to the Scottish ministers and the ministers will be answerable to us here in Parliament. The education authorities and Scottish ministers will describe their steps taken to reduce the attainment gap during the previous two years and how those steps have provided educational benefits to pupils and what plans they have to continue their progress in the following two years. Those reports will give us a clearer insight into their workings and will provide a stronger measurement of the success of their programmes in being able to observe the past progression and to hear future expectations. An increase in educational attainment brings in benefits not only to the students who are achieving more but to society as a whole. This September the economic modelling specialist international put out a report stating that every pound invested in Scotland's colleges society receives back £6.30 in benefits. The report also found that taxpayers see £5.70 in benefits for every pound they spend on education. Another institution based within my constituency is Queen Margaret University in Musselburgh and this year they announced plans to build a commercial and innovation hub surrounding its campus. The QMU innovation centre in the hub alone is expected to create over a thousand jobs for Musselburgh and the entire hub is predicted to make thousands of jobs in the entrepreneurship, retail and creative industry sectors and this development will enrich the east-loading economy and support growth in Musselburgh and beyond. These are just one of the many instances which support and supporting education both in the early years and at university levels strengthens bonds between universities, local society and encourages the community to thrive. Though there have been major advances made in Scotland's education over the past eight years, there is no doubt that we must continue to do better. Children from low income backgrounds are still at a disadvantage in school from their very first days through circumstances that are entirely out of their control and the steps taken in this education bill are essential to help our schools bridge this attainment gap and it's our moral duty to ensure that today, regardless of the background, should have an equal chance to succeed in school and beyond. Many thanks. Jane Baxter to be followed by Rod Campbell. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome this bill because it gives us the chance to work together to tackle the attainment gap in Scotland and that's a principle that must surely be accepted by everyone in the chamber and certainly from the contributions I've heard this afternoon that there seems to be a very positive response to the bill and a willingness to take it forward. Essentially the bill places a duty on local authorities to reduce inequalities of outcome based on socio-economic background and the bill will also at stage 2 introduce proposals for a national performance framework. The reduction of educational inequality is one of the central motivating forces for Scotland's future. I want to live in a Scotland where young people from all backgrounds can achieve their potential and realise their goals and I'm sure we can all agree on that. So I welcome the chance to speak in today's debate and I especially welcome the chance to talk about attainment. The starting point for that debate must surely be to establish the baseline of the current situation. More than 6,000 children in Scotland leave primary school unable to read properly. Pupils from a wealthier background are twice as likely to get a higher A than those from deprived backgrounds. Standards and literacy and numeracy have fallen in Scottish schools since 2012 and just 25 per cent of S2 pupils from the most disadvantaged backgrounds have numeracy skills issued. I'm really pleased that the bill recognises that this is not all down to teachers. Responsibility for this does not sit the teachers who work incredibly hard and are passionate about those they teach. It's also not the first time that we've heard about the parents and other guardians who do the best that they can for the children. It is the case that educational inequality is linked closely to economic factors beyond the control of schools. But we must be very careful not to use statistics relating to poverty and inequality to excuse rather than explain performance in some schools. It is a whole system structural problem and it will need a whole system structural response. And it doesn't apply only to schools. For Scotland also has a disappointing record in getting people from disadvantaged backgrounds into university. And we heard at First Minister's questions today a plethora of facts and figures and comparisons around that topic. And I'm hoping that we can come together around this bill and work together, get to the bottom of what needs to be done and then make it happen. It's clear that closing the attainment gap is at the heart of everything that we should do in this Parliament that the Scottish Government does as well. Much of where the whole system responds to educational inequality will be found is in areas which are devolved to local authorities. COSLA supports the principle of the bill but has expressed concerns that the proposals in it might not have been thought through enough and that they would merit more attention. It's my experience that local authorities are already thinking strategically about reducing educational inequality when looking at schools. In recent times there's been an emerging focus on early years and at the other end of the scale links with employers and colleges and all of that has been supported by Government and it's to be welcomed. COSLA has also cautioned against an excessive bureaucratic response to the attainment gap problem with the warning that this could lead to the diversion of resources from the front line to the completion of forms and reports for central government and that it needs to interact with existing legislation designed to improve educational attainment rather than set up standalone systems and procedures. It also seems to me that with so much data pertaining to the attainment of pupils being published for each school the creation of league tables is unavoidable. Parents with the means to do so already go to great lengths to get their children into schools with high performance and I wonder how the Government feels about this albeit inadvertently whether this is encouraging that trend. There is more work in discussion to be done at stage 2 if we are to establish a strategic approach. Moving on to Gaelic education what's the principle is one that we can all agree on that is precious little in the way of specifics on implementation in the bill. There are already not enough Gaelic language teachers in Scotland and with continuing reductions in local authority budgets the lack of resources is only going to get worse. We need to hear more from the Scottish Government on how they plan to implement this policy. Presiding Officer I'll close with a comment about the creation of chief education officers in every Scottish local authority and I agree with COSLA when they ask what's the problem that's being solved here if this is the answer what was the question most local authorities already have a comparable position in place so it seems to me that the principle is agreed and I would only ask that more work is done on the fine detail required to ensure a better fit with existing structures in place already. Scottish Labour will work to improve this bill and use it forward. What matters is how many lives are transformed for the better by education. We need to work constructively across parties across layers of government and across the country to ensure that Scotland's young people get the education and the opportunities that they deserve. Thank you. I now call on Rod Campbell to be followed by Hanzala Mallick. Presiding Officer as a non-member of the education committee I welcome the opportunity to participate but it's not actually in the bill stated in the bill I think narrowing or dare I say closing the educational attainment gap between children from different social economic backgrounds is absolutely fundamental to creating a fairer society and it goes without saying that tackling educational inequality is at the heart of this government's agenda. I'm sure that all members will agree however that the achievement of a good level of education is one of the greatest ways in which a young person can create the best possible opportunities to take one example that in respect of high school leavers from the most deprived 20% of areas in Scotland do half as well as school leavers from the most affluent areas although as we know the number of students obtaining at least one higher or equivalent in Scotland in Scotland's most deprived areas has doubled since 2008. Of course I very much welcome the progress that's been made in numbers of staying on at school since 2007 whereas in 2007 45% of students stayed on at school until the sixth year now that proportion is 62%. I welcome the rise in the number of higher passes to 156,000 per year and indeed the rise in the number of young people in work, education or training after school and accordingly having a positive destination. While we should also be grateful that EMI has been retained in Scotland in contrast to England and Wales but we should also recognise that much more needs to be done. That's why this bill and the attainment challenge backed by the attainment Scotland fund is to be welcomed. We have suggested to focus initially on the areas with some of the highest rates of deprivation so it's right in my view that we look closely particularly at local authorities such as West Dunbartonshire in North Ayrshire and we must also ensure that children can read, write and count as early as possible. It's good that all primary one and three children will receive a gift of books and literacy materials fundamental to their progress and we really should be ensuring that children have as far as easy access to libraries so closing libraries as proposed in some local authorities in Scotland is not the answer and I'm pleased that the study growing up in Scotland, a 10-year study published earlier this month, found that vocabulary and problem solving for those with the lowest incomes is getting better and more children from all backgrounds are experiencing the joy of reading at an early age. The bill of course places a duty on the Scottish Government and education authorities to report on their efforts to reduce inequality and the policy memorandum provides little information on how this is to be achieved. I agree with the cabinet secretary that 32 varieties of reporters is not the answer and we certainly don't want to create a new industry in report writing but clearly some form of guidance as recommended by the committee seems sensible and as Professor Sue Ellis of the Joseph Randry Foundation said in evidence quote, what will make an impact and a difference is the extent to which national advice, local authority advice and school advice line up and marry together so that schools and head teachers are getting clear advice and signposts about what matters and clear information about what works. What we want to do is to avoid an overtly prescriptive approach so that we can achieve attainment on what works basis as the Joseph Randry Foundation described it, applied appropriately on an individual basis depending on the local needs of pupils this appears to be the most sensible approach. The policy needs to take account of the poverty level for each school whilst taking consideration of the social divides within each school and the aim must be to create a consistent framework for pupils across the entire span of their school education across the board no matter what their current social background. If we had really to close the attainment gap found across the social spectrum and the bills requirement for compulsory registration and I am aware that Mary Scanan was concerned about the absence of consultation except that it is an important requirement but we do not live in a perfect world but I think that it is important that the requirement for registration with a general teaching council for Scotland for teachers in independent and granted schools so that it will offer guarantees that the standards and quality of teaching staff across the board will be more consistent no matter what area a pupil is educated in. The technical amendment on free school meals is an element of the bill that tackles one of the fundamental factors that our children can face when expected to learn on unequal terms with other more fortunate, literally better fair children so I welcome that too and the introduction of the bill must be something that works in tandem with the curriculum for excellence. The curriculum for excellence gives teachers more flexibility it provides a broader education for young people and sets higher standards for achievement than ever before. The approach of the bill should be to work alongside that and to seek to create an environment where attainment gaps can be steadily narrowed. More generally, as Ian Glenn of the Scottish secondary teachers association said in evidence, while supporting the bill he raised concerns over the further resources that are required to make this happen but I agree with him when he is right to say that quote, resources do not make education, education is made by teachers with the support of resources. Closing the attainment gap will not happen overnight. It should be a process of gradual but consistent, I hope, progress. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, as Neil Mathers of the Save the Children in Scotland organisation said, there is no greater priority than closing the attainment gap in Scotland and I'm sure that at least some of us would agree that quote, a legal requirement to close the attainment gap shows that Scotland no longer accepts that lottery of birth matters more than that of talent or effort at school. Thank you Presiding Officer. Thank you. I now call on Hanzala Malik to be followed by Fiona McLeod, a generous six-minute. Thank you very much and good afternoon Presiding Officer. It is an honour to speak on the Education Scotland bill today. I think everyone in the chamber will agree to support improving attainment and the delivery of greater equality of education and outcomes. However, there will be differences of opinion on what is the best way to achieve these aims. I have concerns that the bill has admitted to Parliament fall short of its aims. One major part of the need to strengthen the duty to reduce inequality of outcome. The current duty requires education authorities and Scottish ministers to have due regard to the desirability of reducing inequalities of outcome. I personally would like to see that there is a duty which requires Scottish ministers and education authorities to take steps to reduce the inequality of outcome. I am under the impression that there is no clear distinction in inequalities of outcome. In addition, in a statement by three major children welfare charities have said, there is currently a lack of clarity around how to tackle inequalities of outcome at the local level and that the bill can help by identifying the key steps and policy areas that need to be tackled. I firmly believe that we need to flush out this bill with useful and meaningful detail. As there is a general conclusion that on the importance of reducing inequality, I think we can work together to make a meaningful change for our children and our young people. I also feel that we can go further on the subject of improving attainment and reducing the attainment gap between the rich, poor and minority communities in Scotland. The SNP Government should be held to account that after eight years in power we still have more than 6,000 children in Scotland who leave primary school and are unable to read properly. The government appears to be in a rush to look like they are doing something through the national improvement framework. I understand that the framework will be introduced into stage two of the bill. It is currently being consulted on and has provoked significant opposition already. I will reserve my position on this part of the bill as we do not know what form it will appear in. However, I would like to say that majority changes to the education system should not be rushed into. We cannot afford to mess up either the legislation or the implementation of reforms as the risks damaging the level of our lives of our young is too high a price to pay. Hence, there are three points that I want to make very clear in terms of my opinion on to the Scottish Government. Those are we must be we must not improve the attainment of a young as it stands. The bill must not be rushed and it should reflect the shortcomings that we have. We know that we have what to do in improving the attainment for our young and also we want to make sure that we address the inequalities of outcomes. Last but not least we must make sure that the bill reflects all the needs that are required. We must take on board the recommendations made to us by teachers, EIS, parents and community groups in regards to the bill and how they expect the bill to reflect its needs. One of the things I have also noticed as a personal input to the at the end and that is in terms of languages. I see that we have not really addressed that issue and I am looking forward to see a commitment from the Government on languages as well. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. I now call on Fiona McLeod before we move to the closing speeches. Up to seven minutes please, Mr McLeod. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Interesting to come in as the last speaker in this debate and to have heard how much there is consensus around the chamber on this bill, every party saying that they will support the principles at stage 1 but everybody coalescing around the understanding that closing the attainment gap is the most important thing that the Government can do. Very interesting to hear that because we all know that the First Minister has made that a priority not just of her Government but of her own time as the First Minister. In the time that I have Presiding Officer, I would like to look at two aspects that the bill brings forward and that is about closing the attainment gap but for me, you won't be surprised as the librarian that is about talking about literacy but I promise that I am not going to harp on about it. What I want to look at there is about it is fundamental people's literacy is absolutely fundamental. We have heard a couple of members talking about the studies that are showing that when children appear at school there can be a 10 month gap and a 13 month gap in their abilities in reading and in problem solving. Therefore it is fundamental to our ability to learn but what I would like to talk about more is about parental and carer involvement in the work with our youngest children on their literacy and numeracy levels but I also want to make sure that I leave enough time to talk about the national improvement framework but if I can look at the Read Write Count programme that was introduced this year which I have spoken about before in the chamber it is just such a fantastic initiative that primary one to three is going to be involved in this it's going to be about in school but for me it's also really important that we're going to involve the parents, the carers and the families in the whole Read Write Count experience for our young children George Adam talked about how important it is and there's loads of research on this so it's about our parents and our carers and our families working with our youngest children on their skills it's about embedding them in everyday life so that children don't actually realise their learning and I think I've referred before to the Government's website where we've got the videos of how to take the kids for the messages and they don't realise that they're reading the labels on the tins and adding up the money in their person, what the goods are going to cost that's all about Read Write Count skills but what I also think is really important is that it's embedded into that some outreach work so that the attainment advisers and those that are working on Read Write Count will also be working with the parents bringing the parents in making them part of this experience for their children and one plea I would make on that to the Government is it's not just about encouraging our parents to work with their children but it's actually about looking to see what we've got wrapping around to support the parents and literacy skills because there is a lot of evidence that where a parent has doubts about their own literacy skills their own confidence and numeracy they are less likely to support their children and to help them on that journey loads of evidence on that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found loads of stuff on that I'll give you all the references later but I won't take up the time on it but I would also refer members to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation we all accept the work that they do and how good it is but I came across some stuff from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta now as a health librarian I always thought that was who I went to find out about how do we cure snake bites but they've actually got some brilliant research on parental engagement and strategies for involving parents and they're looking at it through the health and wellbeing of the child to which literacy is one of them so if I can leave you with those thoughts on parental involvement and the research that you can go and have a read at and take some time to look at the national improvement framework because it's about evidence we are spending, this Government is investing £100 million in the attainment fund we're recruiting attainment advisers we're involving parents supporting our children but at the end of this how will we know that all of this works and so we have to ensure that through the national improvement framework we are embedding for every single pupil the baseline that Jane Baxter talked about of where we're starting so that we can track through all this work that we're going to do to ensure that the work that we're doing actually works it does close the attainment gap and Liam McArthur talked about how many local authorities and how many schools are getting money from the attainment fund if we can through the national improvement framework embed a way of ensuring that we have the evidence that shows what works and where it works then we can roll that out across the whole country and to every single pupil and is that not the way that we're going to close the attainment gap by ensuring that every time a teacher stands up to teach a pupil it is evidence based and it's based on what we know will do the work that we need to do and we know already and it's been spoken about in the debate that there are already 30 out of 32 local authorities doing assessment so we need to get some consistency into the assessment so that we have reliable evidence we need to develop that in partnership and that's what the Government has committed to do and this improvement framework will give us indicators indicators that teachers can use that parents can use but you know let's not forget that pupils can use so that they can know themselves that their learning is progressing and that they are doing the best that they can so to Ian Gray I would say this is about improvement not about testing it's about ensuring that we have an evidence base to make sure that every child gets access to the best teaching that there is in Scotland Roger Campbell referred to the growing up in Scotland study the 10 year study that was published in October 2015 let's hope that in 2025 based on the evidence that we gather through the attainment challenge that the GUS results in 2025 show if we haven't closed the attainment gap we haven't narrowed it down to as small as possible thank you and before we move to the closing speeches I'll just take this opportunity to remind all members who've taken part in this debate and invite them to return to the chamber for the closing speeches now Colin Liz Smith seven minutes are thereby please miss Smith thank you Deputy Presiding Officer I think when any piece of legislation is proposed it's very important to ask what it's for what is it designed to do and what problems is it trying to address and as Mary Scanlon rightly said in her contribution the Scottish Conservatives believe very firmly that having analysed the bill and listened to the experts the education Scotland bill as it stands just now is very mixed in its success of being able to answer those key questions that's because at times as has been evidenced by the report from the education and culture committee that there is a complete lack of clarity in the use of terminology Chick Brody referred to this in his contribution but also there are discrepancies between the use of terms in the bill and the policy memorandum and there also are discrepancies within those and the utterances of ministers so I think that makes for rather confusing reading and I think it could have some serious implications for the intentions of the bill if we don't sort that quickly firstly on the issue of raising attainment although we often disagree across this chamber on policy responses to the challenges in our education system we all agree unanimously that one of the most significant if not the most significant challenge is the attainment gap which exists between children from the most and least affluent communities and many members this afternoon have spoken about the evidence for that because that is recognised evidence, it comes from experts it comes from politicians from many years who have devoted a lot of their political life to examining these themes and the education committee in this Parliament is no different it has spent a long time looking into the attainment issues for looked after children for many in disadvantaged years and I credit the current chairman of the committee for his assiduous way in which he has looked at these issues yet the idea that enacting in legislation that education authorities must have due regard to the desirability of reducing inequalities of outcome does I think bear further scrutiny not least because it is a statement of a broad aim rather than a specific commitment which relates to the precise problems faced in our classrooms the methods to be used to raise attainment as a result of this bill are not actually all that clear nor is the terminology that last point is worth emphasising when the solution to the attainment gap is framed only as closing the gap this could in theory be a weaker outcome from children who are performing a little bit better and that's clearly not something that anybody in this chamber wants so it is essential to define raising attainment in its best qualitative sense and the failure of the bill to explain this at the moment is a serious problem and I have to say I think it does raise questions about the need for legislation in the first place what exactly is it in the bill that will actually deliver that quality change to improve terminology and definitions but I wonder if she would accept that having a duty to address inequalities combined with reporting duties where both Scottish ministers and local authorities have to account for what they're doing why they're doing and providing the evidence of what they're doing and the impact there is having there is those two things combined that will have a more collegiate and collective impact I'm grateful for the cabinet secretary's intervention but with respect I don't think that's what some of our educational experts are saying that their fear about some aspects of this bill that it actually increases the reporting duty as in the too much focus on that without looking at the specific issues in the classroom that will actually deliver the qualitative change that we're looking for so it's all very well to have broad aims at the start of a bill, of course that's necessary but we actually need something that's much more specific and I do think there's a terminology problem as mentioned as I say by Chick Brody now these educational experts where they happen to be Sue Ellis or Lindsay Patterson or Keir Bloomer they do actually have concerns that might be a negligible effect on the actual outcomes because along with others they speak I have to say with very considerable authority on that matter and they worry that the bill will engage councils in an excessively bureaucratic reporting exercise which focuses a bit too much on the paperwork rather than the proven measures I think Kara Hilton mentioned some of the measures that have taken place in Fife and seem to be working well I think it's much more about that that we're looking for so I think those who want to draw to the attention of the cabinet secretary the call that was made by the committee is the fact that this duty doesn't include the early years now listen very carefully to what Fiona McLeod said on this point these early years matter a very great deal because it is embedding literacy and numeracy at these stages and it does seem rather illogical to exclude this indisputably important stage in the child's learning experience I agree there are other measures but it is part of that yes of course Fiona McLeod I think that the increase in early learning hours from 475 to 600 already with the intention to increase to 1140 is a huge investment in those early years and the learning that our youngest children have absolutely, it's something that the Conservatives have supported I don't have any problem with that but what I'm saying is in a bill that is about the qualitative improvement of the attainment level that must surely include the most important ages when it comes to ensuring that they have basic literacy and numeracy now if I may how long do I have the duties which the bill seeks to impose in relation to Gaelic education are also unclear I think it's a hugely important area to look at and the committees obviously had lots of submissions on there when it came to looking at the issues I think there is a very important difference between the uptake in primary schools and in secondary schools and that's something that we really need to address Ken Macintosh I heard spoke eloquently about the staffing issue when it comes to Gaelic teaching that is clearly an issue and Lea MacArthur I think raised a very good point about the entitlement and the pressure that that puts on many areas that perhaps don't have the obviously the native Gaelic speakers but these Gaelic speakers need 100% support we must ensure that resources are in the right place I think when it comes to additional support for learning there are clearly major issues here there are far more children now identified with additional support needs because we've got better at identifying these needs but there are issues about the test there are issues about the definition of rights I know that a lot of the submissions that have been made to the committee in these definitional points if I can just finish on two things and can I just declare an interest at this point as a registered teacher with the GTCS and also somebody who's a governor of an independent school I'm absolutely in favour of professional development I think the independent sector has come a long way on the GTCS registration that's not something we're going to move against can I just flag up great care for the government when it brings forward what I think will be a stage 2 amendment to your headship that will have implications for the independent sector technically the government is not really in a position to regulate that so that's something that needs to be discussed okay thank you now called on Mark Griffin up to 9 minutes please Mr Griffin or thereby thank you Presiding Officer and I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to welcome this bill the first step to fixing a problem is recognising that there is one and eight years into government I congratulate the cabinet secretary for speaking honestly about the attainment challenge that we face like Fiona McLeod I've been encouraged that all sides of the chamber are committed to ensuring that educational inequality is a top priority for this and I think for the next Parliament too as has been pointed out by other members that it is a gap in attainment between children from poorer backgrounds and those from more affluent circumstances and it's clear from the contributions today that educational inequality is a symptom of a deeper problem of poverty which we need to aggress but what should focus the minds of education policy makers is what can be done within our school system to ensure that coming from an impoverished background does not lead to reduced opportunity I also accept the point which has been made today by Ken McIntosh and others that educational inequality comes from other issues such as pupils having English as a second language or pupils having additional support needs or speech in language, therapy needs nevertheless the measures that we agree to take forward to tackle the attainment gap I think it's quite right that they should be mostly focused on our more deprived communities what I think is unfortunate though is that while this bill and the accompanying national improvement framework recognise the challenge I think there's little in the way of strategy substance resources to begin to tackle it I think given the strength of feeling and commitment across the chamber today the key test which the bill must meet to command support will surely be whether it will provide a step change in the education of our poorest children I think Stuart Maxwell and Liam McArthur perhaps questioned whether the bill in its present form perhaps difficult to see that it will and while a few members have quoted Keir Bloomer a generous a more generous quote is perhaps a summary of the evidence that we received at committee when we asked about the measures on attainment a quote was that it was mostly harmless much of the media attention and rhetoric so far has been on the reporting requirements in national testing that's understandable since it's the only concrete measure contained in the draft so far but I do welcome the cabinet secretary's comments if I heard her correctly about a commitment to place a place an amendment to put into legislation a requirement to address that attainment gap to go further than that due to the desirability issue that has been raised by Mary Scanlon and others on the issue of standardised testing I think there needs to be some greater clarity from the government and I hope the cabinet secretary or the minister and someone up will offer further details cos I have rightly raised the point that the Scottish Government has to carefully consider the information that will be put into the public domain so as to avoid encouraging league tables or putting undue stress on pupils and teachers as a result of heightened media attention Jane Baxter asked the question as to how ministers propose to stop league tables being created if data is published about individual schools particularly in the context of freedom of information legislation but testing and reporting are means to an end the end being substantial improvements in the educational outcomes of disadvantaged pupils and I think the bills fall short in that area so far it's difficult to disagree with the reflections of the Royal Society of Edinburgh that unless something is known about how that might effectively be achieved and the reporting duty will be of limited value the RSE while welcoming the laudable aims of ministers found that there is little evidence of our strategy in the government approach and I think that the issues raised by Stuart Maxwell and Liam McArthur around the late introduction of material have contributed to that concern around a lack of a coherent strategy the concern is echoed by the EIS who believe that the introduction will alone will not deliver significant change in reducing inequalities of outcome or impact greatly on the attainment gap created by socio-economic inequality as it creates duties but fails to link those to descendable means to secure the desired outcome and I think on this side we believe that there's action beyond what the Government has proposed and we've set out that in the contributions by Labour members I think that the amendments that we are talking about would make a difference in the coming years this Parliament will have a substantial suite of new powers which will open up new choices in the funding of education I agree with Chick Brody that legislation is needed to tackle disparities in pay and wealth and that's why we would use additional revenues from a new 50p tax rate to redistribute money from those who can afford to pay to those who need it most investing additional resources over and above the Government's proposals to tackling educational disadvantage we would double the number of teaching assistants in our primary schools that are facing the greatest deprivation challenges we would also introduce a new literacy programme for schools and we would recruit and train literacy specialists we would also offer support to parents to enable them to learn with their children and we would introduce a special literacy programme for looked after children and as Ian Gray said we will be exploring options for amendments around a review of resources in the context of the further powers coming to this Parliament there have been other areas of concern in this bill and I'm pleased that where the minister seeks to extend the rights of children with capacity beyond making an application to the additional supports in his tribunal that she's committed to listening to the concerns raised in our evidence sessions Liam McArthur highlighted the concerns by the Scottish Commissioner for Children and Young People the EHRC Faculty of Advocates Law Society Government Law Centre among others they all highlighted reservations around the proposals in the bill to require education authorities to determine if the child has capacity and if it is in the child's best interest before allowing the child to exercise it's right it's important and pleased to see that the minister, the cabinet secretary has listened to those pieces those submissions that the committee has received and has made that commitment to make amendments in that area as I've said we would use the additional revenue from a new 50p top rate of tax to redistribute resources from those who can afford it to those who need it most we would invest those additional resources over and above what the Government proposes to invest a tackle educational disadvantage to ensure that pupils who face the greatest educational challenges have the opportunity to achieve the qualifications that they need in order to have a career in science, maths, engineering or technology additional resource is only part of the answer but an integral part and I think that the call has been made already that an evaluation of funding required should be carried out by the Government as to how much they see is required to be invested to tackle and to close the attainment gap we will await with interest the publication of the Government amendments we will engage constructively as the bill progresses we hope to work with the Government on the amendments that we are likely to table but I think there must be some recognition from the Government that this bill as it stands will not have the impact that I think all sides of the chamber want to see but today is the first step and we will support the bill as it stands at decision time Thanks Now call on Dr Arsaral and you have until just before 5 o'clock Thank you perhaps just as well there is a lot in this bill we've heard a range of considered views this afternoon and it's been good a shared enthusiasm I think for improving outcomes for all of our children that is at the heart of this bill and the relative consensus around its principles are certainly very much welcome in that spirit I will do the best I can to pick up on as many as possible of the wide variety of comments that members have made there is regarding the bill as Mr MacArthur has said a lot in the fridge I can assure them that as with my own fridge there are items there within it that have been mature and carefully for quite some time many members commented in detail in parts of that bill but I think it's worth saying first that many commented on the principles and Ian Gray quite rightly Gil Paterson and many others rightly referred to the moral imperative that exists to ensure that our schools represent equity of opportunity for all our young people and that we close and deal with the gap that still exists so the new duty in the bill will require councils as has been discussed to have due regard to the desirability of reducing inequalities of outcome through the delivery of education and we believe that is the right approach and to respond to the questions from Mr Maxwell about what actions might be open to local authorities in achieving that aim. I can merely say that statutory guidance will exemplify some of that but I think for certain we can say that it would include issues around the setting of education budgets arrangements for monitoring standards decisions around the school estate and, indeed, specialist provision and I'm happy to take an intervention Minister for doing so I don't think that there's any doubt about the desirability I think that's absolutely right the convener and I understand it in the committee report has asked about the specific actions and it's on that basis that really ask again why is legislation per se necessary to achieve this Minister I think that as has been explained it is right that we do put some of these aims I think that the member would probably be concerned if we legislated to the point where the things I've just exemplified were imposed upon local government through legislation in quite that detail but I'm happy to have discussions with her about any concerns she has outstanding and I know that I think she and others for instance have asked around some of the terminology that's relevant to that I think the government, I would say in response to that, is keen to respond as we can to those comments and the comments in the stage 1 report around terminology our response to the report therefore clarifies for instance that the term attainment means educational performance and the acquisition of skills, knowledge and attributes needed to succeed in life I hear what Miss Scanlon was saying around that but I think the relevant parts of the bill are fair in their definitions other definitions perhaps around for instance the term socio-economic disadvantage although not defined or accept on the face of the bill we will use statutory guidance to support education authorities in identifying those children who are to be supported and are more than willing to correspond with members who have any outstanding concerns around terminology in the bill itself I want to pick up on comments that have been made towards the end of this debate around for instance the annex sorry around Liz Smith's comments on the national inclusion framework I think I should possibly clarify that this will indeed encompass early years education and that is in annex C of the bill which makes that clear so I hope I can reassure on that point Mark Griffin asked specifically about league tables and of course as he'll appreciate the Government themselves have never produced league tables of schools regarding those as essentially unhelpful constructs produced by others but we are alive to the issues he's mentioned and we're working with the EIS and with local authorities to ensure that there are no perverse or unhelpful consequences of our direction of travel on standardised assessments the issues around the attainment fund and challenge advisers are relevant to mention in summing up two meanwhile the attainment Scotland fund is a targeted initiative over four years totaling £100 million focused on supporting pupils in the councils with the highest concentrations initially seven local authorities the Scottish attainment challenge is intended to help all councils and all schools indeed to consider how best to use their existing resources to support pupils from more deprived backgrounds 24 attainment advisers have now been assigned to local authorities and the remaining eight will be in place by the end of next month many members today and also in committee mentioned the parts of the bill which deal with Gallic media education and I'll try again to pick up as many as possible of the comments that were raised today around that Mr Maxx will raise the issue of preschool education and it is worth referring I think here to the order making powers that exist within the bill allowing the government to return to this issue although as has been mentioned there are reasons why it's not being done just at the moment given the number of things that are happening in the preschool education world at once just now on secondary education of course the points that have been made about the shortage of Gallic medium teachers which are particularly acute in secondary are relevant but I hope that not only being said about Gallic media education in this bill but also the responsibility that's being given to local authorities to promote Gallic itself is relevant to promoting Gallic within secondary schools Yes Mackintosh Can we have Mr Mackintosh's fault I can try and project a little more Would the minister be able to confirm whether or not when his presumption on Gallic medium education is introduced whether he believes he will have delivered on the 2011 SNP election manifesto promise Yes I do I think that when we look at the amendments that the government brings forward I think as I indicated earlier on to him that really there is very little distance I can now see between what the government is allowed to propose what the member is talking about what Gallic organisations have been talking about I feel very strongly about the need to promote Gallic medium education and indeed about the need to strengthen the bill I'm very happy to meet with organisations around that and indeed have been doing so the question that has been not unreasonably asked throughout what happens at the end of the processes that are described in the bill once a need has been demonstrated locally further to be a Gallic medium unit I recognise the strength of those concerns and have asked that the government amendments be drafted to make it clear a presumption in favour of Gallic medium primary education will exist in those circumstances and I can say in response to one or two of the wider comments to have been made on Gallic provision not so much within this chamber but out with it that I make no apology for supporting learning through the medium of Gallic as I think most members will agree and as has been evidenced today it's not really possible to be supportive or even accepting of the future existence of Gallic but then to complain when it is either seen or heard and the bill and the government amendments should be seen in that light I share Mr MacArthur's concern that we do not see the loss of the Orcadian dialect or indeed others of Scotland's dialect but let me also be clear about this point if we do lose the Orcadian dialect from the speech of people in Orkney it's not likely to be the Gallic language that displaces it and Scotland's dialects the Scots language and Gallic actually have much in common many shared interests in terms of where we should be approaching government policy from so I don't think they need to compete Liam MacArthur to the minister for taking intervention I would certainly acknowledge the efforts he's made specifically in relation to the Orcadian dialect I think the point I was making that when education budgets are under considerable strain there is a danger that if you add additional pressure in something ends up getting lost off the other end and I would say that perhaps Orcadian dialect is not as much at risk as anything else As I said I completely acknowledge both the risk and the value of Orcadian I want to pick up on a couple of points in the couple of minutes that I've got left merely to say that the additional support for learning part of the bill, the provisions on support for learning officials have benefited from significant discussions with stakeholders and have therefore agreed to bring forward some amendments to the bill's provisions on stage 2 that have been detailed within our response to the committee It's our intention through these regulations to introduce strict timetables for instance timescales rather also on the relevant parties affected by the section 70 process I appreciate the points that were made by Miss Smith and others in response about the need to ensure that all pupils whatever kind of school they go to enjoy the benefit of having teachers who are registered with the General Teaching Council of Scotland and around the points that have been made on the consultation ministers acknowledge the concerns raised with regards to detailed consultation it is and will remain to be normal practice for the Scottish Government to consult fully on the content of bills prior to introduction ministers had a desire to inject some further measures on social justice into this bill and therefore because of timing detailed consultation didn't take place however that does not mean it was not the right thing to do Presiding Officer I welcome the support that we have heard here today for the principles of the bill and I also hope that the Government's willingness to amend the bill is evidence of our openness to constructive ideas from other quarters as the Cabinet Secretary has indicated today we will of course continue to listen throughout the parliamentary process to further improve the bill and to make sure Presiding Officer that we keep at the forefront of our minds always our shared determination to do the best for Scotland's children and young people Thank you That concludes the debate on the Education Scotland Bill and the next item of business is consideration of motion number 1 3938 in the name of John Swinney on the financial resolution for the Education Scotland Bill and I call on John Swinney to move the motion Thank you The next item of business is consideration of two parliamentary motions to move motion number 14632 on designation of a lead committee and motion number 14650 on the suspension of standing orders The question of these motions will be put decision time to which we now come There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business The first question is that motion number 14614 in the name of Angela Constance and Education Scotland Bill be agreed to Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to The next question is that motion number 1398 in the name of John Swinney on the financial resolution for the Education Scotland Bill be agreed to Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to The next question is that motion number 14632 in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick on the designation of a lead committee be agreed to The next question is that motion number 14650 in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick on suspension of standing orders be agreed to Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to That concludes decision time and I now close this meeting