Hansard

Amendments 6 to 15 make a series of improvements to section 17B of the bill, refining the provisions brought forward at stage 2 to protect the length of the primary school week. Before describing those changes in detail, I would like to respond to some of the—in my view misguided—criticisms surrounding our decision to introduce those provisions.

I turn first to the lack of formal consultation. I have been absolutely clear, both in my representations to the Education and Culture Committee at stage 2 and in all the subsequent discussions on the matter, that regulations made under section 17B will be underpinned by a robust and inclusive consultation exercise. That is why the bill provisions have been drafted as they have, intentionally providing us with the necessary flexibility to respond to the outcome of those discussions, which I hope will start later this year.

We have also been criticised for stating our view that a primary school week consisting of 25 hours of contact time with a qualified teacher seems a reasonable starting point for those discussions. I believe our position to be an entirely reasonable one. After all, it simply reflects the level of provision that is currently made available in the vast majority of schools across the country. Further, it is a level of provision that teachers, parents and—most importantly—pupils have come to expect over many years and which has survived through periods of significant transformative change within our system, not least with the introduction of curriculum for excellence. To start anywhere else would therefore seem to me to be rather counterintuitive.

As I have said, we are keen to listen to the representations that will undoubtedly be made, particularly in relation to the level of provision within infant primary years, where there is some slight variation in practice across the country. Let me make it clear, however, that the decisions that we reach will not be driven by the same financial considerations that have underpinned the local proposals to reduce the school week that have been brought forward in recent years. Our children’s education is simply too important for that.

I have brought forward my amendments in order to prevent the type of postcode lottery that would undoubtedly have developed if local councils had proceeded with those proposals. It remains absolutely my view that that cannot be allowed to happen and that to allow it would be short-sighted and inconsistent with this Government’s commitment to deliver an education system that delivers for all. For those reasons, it will come as no surprise to members that I reject Mary Scanlon’s amendments 58 and 75, which seek to remove the learning hours duty from the bill outright.

For different reasons, I do not support amendment 54, which Mary Scanlon has lodged to ensure that the learning hours duty cannot be imposed before the beginning of the 2018-19 school year. I fully accept that education authorities and grant-aided schools require advance warning of the learning hours duty and time to ensure that they are able to comply with it. As I have already made clear this afternoon, I accept too that we must take the necessary time to consult fully and widely on the detailed implementation of the duty through regulations. It is also important that we listen to stakeholders and that we understand fully the implications of the duty as it is imposed. It is important that we get it right.

I do not believe, however, that it is necessary or appropriate for a timetable to be included explicitly on the face of the bill—not least an arbitrary timetable that takes no account of what will doubtless be an important consultation feedback on the matter.

The changes that are proposed by my amendments at stage 3 are relatively minor. They are designed to clarify aspects of the legislation and to ensure that we have the necessary flexibility to accommodate situations in which it would be entirely legitimate to offer a reduced level of provision.

To start with, amendments 6 and 8 are minor drafting changes that are required to improve on the readability of the section and to leave out one unnecessary word.

Amendments 7 and 9 should be considered together. Amendment 7 makes it clear that the duty on education authorities and grant-aided schools to provide the prescribed number of learning hours is subject to the power that is set out in new section 17B(3), which is introduced by amendment 9. That subsection provides for fewer than the prescribed number of hours to be provided in certain circumstances, which are set out in new subsection (3A).

Those circumstances cover situations where an individual pupil’s wellbeing would be adversely affected as a result of the pupil receiving the prescribed number of learning hours. They also include situations where, due to matters outwith its control, it would be impractical for the school to provide the prescribed number of hours. That could occur, for example, due to severe weather. New subsection (3A)(c) will allow ministers to prescribe, through regulations, other circumstances in which fewer hours could be provided.

Amendment 9 also introduces new subsections (3B) and (3C). New subsection (3B) requires that, when the prescribed hours are not made available due to the circumstances that I have just described, the authority or school must make available reduced hours. New subsection (3C) defines “reduced hours” as the prescribed hours less those hours that would have been provided but for the circumstances arising.

The result is to place a cap on the reduction in the number of learning hours that the child receives. The learning hours can be reduced only in so far as they need to be reduced to address the relevant circumstances under subsection (3A).

In contrast, Mary Scanlon’s amendments 55 and 56 seek to disapply the learning hours duty in its entirety—in relation to all pupils or groups of pupils in the case of amendment 55, and to whole schools in the case of amendment 56—where it is deemed that the provision of the prescribed hours is not in those pupils’ best interests.

Once the duty is disapplied under those proposals, we would return to the status quo, under which no requirement is placed on education authorities or managers or on grant-aided schools to provide a particular number of—or, indeed, any—learning hours. I have already made it clear that I do not find that position tenable, and on that basis I cannot support amendments 55 and 56.

Amendment 9 also makes it clear that, when an authority or school is considering reducing the number of hours that are made available to a child due to a concern around their wellbeing, it must do so with reference to the SHANARRI indicators that are already recognised in law through the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. The amendment will therefore ensure that the prescribed hours can be reduced only in so far as it can be demonstrated that they impact adversely on the extent to which the child will be safe, healthy, achieving, nurtured, active, respected, responsible and included.