Hansard

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Education and Culture Committee in this stage 1 debate. In the time available, I will focus on two issues: pupils’ inequalities of outcome and Gaelic-medium education, as those issues 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 will highlight some of those issues in my speech, including areas where I think further debate is needed, and trust that my colleagues will discuss those parts of the bill that I do not have time to cover.

First, 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 head teachers’ 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 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 is encouraging that the Minister for Parliamentary Business is taking steps to improve those documents. If fuller information had been provided at the outset, some of our recommendations might have been different.

I 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 it had to be provided well in advance of today’s debate. That response and the very detailed evidence that we heard will allow us to have a particularly informed discussion today around 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 that 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 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 this 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’”.

Indeed, the cabinet secretary stated that in her opening remarks.

I believe that the committee would be grateful 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 for the cabinet secretary is, what can those children, and perhaps their families, expect to receive as a result of the bill?

Another recommendation called for the bill’s reporting structure to be as effective as possible. We came to that conclusion for various reasons. For example, some who gave evidence feared that a reporting duty could simply amount to an exercise in bureaucracy or could 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. East Dunbartonshire Council, for example, called for

“a clearer and more coherent strategy nationally to raising attainment.”

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 the Scottish Government’s intentions to lodge amendments to provide for that. 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.

The 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; we heard views that suggested that that is not always the case.

A further key issue is the level of improvement that the 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 considered 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 which are required to address this issue.”

We fully accept that this is a complex area, but we need some indication of the funding calculations that are involved if we are to know when we will see not just progress, but a solution to this long-standing problem.

I want to raise one other issue before concluding on part 1 of the bill. There is a clear and understandable focus on the educational attainment gap that arises from socioeconomic inequalities. However, there are all kinds of attainment gaps. In particular, there are those faced by children and young people who are looked after or who have disabilities, and we asked the Scottish Government whether it would be logical to extend the duty to such groups. It 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 remains open-minded about extending the provision.

I move on to another major part of the bill, namely the provisions on Gaelic education. One of the main criticisms at stage 1—chiefly from Gaelic groups, it has to be said—was that the provisions do not go far enough, and specifically that they do not introduce an entitlement to Gaelic-medium education. Rather, the bill proposes a statutory process for local authorities to use when assessing requests from parents for Gaelic-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, but they must provide reasons for their decisions.

We asked the Scottish Government whether it was still examining how to introduce an entitlement to Gaelic-medium education where reasonable demand exists. Its response is significant as it raises issues that will, no doubt, be intensely scrutinised at stage 2. In short, ministers said that they intend to lodge amendments to include a presumption in favour of Gaelic-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 that have been expressed about a lack of teachers. Indeed, Scottish Government officials acknowledged the difficulties around teacher recruitment.