Hansard

In speaking to the amendment in the name of my colleague Margaret Smith, I add my thanks to the members of the literacy commission for their work in producing the report, which highlights the enormous problem of illiteracy in Scotland. We want the Government to continue to take action as quickly as possible to address the issues that are highlighted in the report, so it was encouraging to hear the cabinet secretary's comments in that regard.

We understand that literacy levels cannot be changed overnight—that is why we are pleased to support the Labour motion—and it is clear that tackling illiteracy will not be easy. As has been mentioned, even measuring literacy levels can be problematic because there are various ways of doing that and there is no single definition of basic literacy. However, the fact that the issue is complicated must not be used as an excuse for a lack of action.

The Liberal Democrats believe that Scotland must have an education system that ensures that all children reach their potential regardless of their background. We want a system of education that shares our vision of fairness, equality and social mobility. It is worrying that the current system seems to be failing around 13,000 pupils or 18.5 per cent of children a year. In addition, it is extremely worrying, if not surprising, that, as the commission highlights, the number of youngsters who face illiteracy is much higher in areas of social deprivation. We need to address that situation in a serious, constructive and joined-up way.

The literacy commission report concluded that socioeconomic disadvantage is the most important cause of correctable poor literacy. It seems that no school in a deprived area can record a similar level of success to that achieved by almost all schools in the most affluent areas—although we need to be a bit cautious about taking a blanket approach, as to do so creates the possibility that young people who live in an affluent area and who are subject to some of the same social pressures, if not the same economic pressures, that are faced by young people who live in more deprived areas might be missed out.

The report also states that a child's social circumstances outweigh other factors, including the quality of teaching. I question that slightly, given that many of us would agree that an inspirational teacher can play a huge role in turning round the life of a disadvantaged child and mitigating some of the challenges that they might face. However, there are some basic effects that material disadvantage can have on educational opportunities. Overcrowding in houses can mean that there is little or no space for private study. In addition, as Rhona Brankin suggested in her question to the cabinet secretary, the literacy of adults in such families is often equally poor. Even though we might develop methods of giving children literacy skills through the education system, it might not be possible to continue that work in a household in which the parents have difficulty with those issues. Addressing that situation becomes an onerous burden on the education service. We need to find a methodology for doing so, which is quite a challenge.

Another factor to bear in mind, which ties in nicely both with what the report says and with Mr McNulty's comments, is that in socioeconomically deprived families, particularly those with young teenagers, the youngsters often go out to work to supplement the family income, which means that the opportunities for additional education are extremely limited.

At a United Kingdom level, the National Literacy Trust has highlighted the importance of the home learning environment. The upshot of deprivation and socioeconomic disadvantage is that too many young people with excellent minds who have not been equipped with literacy skills cannot translate that intellectual ability into positive outcomes.

The NLT looked at five key areas of an individual's life: their economic situation, their aspirations, their family life, their health and their civic and cultural participation. In each of those areas of activity, there was a clear relationship between those who had poor literacy skills and those who achieved lower outcomes. Rather than suggest a causal relationship, the data that were collected indicate that low literacy forms part of a cycle of deprivation, which leaves too many people in Scotland—both adults and children—unhappy and unhealthy.

Therefore, we support the key vision of the report, which, as Des McNulty said, involves the adoption of a zero tolerance approach to illiteracy. We recognise the importance of challenging illiteracy, but, although that is at least partly an educational issue, it cannot be addressed only in our classrooms. Although formal education is the predominant means of delivery of literacy, it is clear from the NLT's study, "Literacy changes lives: An advocacy resource", that there are factors beyond that. The role that trade unions play in learning and the provision of services for youngsters with additional support needs such as hearing loss or a visual impairment must be tied into supporting the literacy agenda.

I am concerned that a simple focus on low achievement among schoolchildren for whom there is no apparent barrier to learning and obtaining adequate literacy skills is too narrow an ambition. I agree that that is a good place to start, but it is clear that a huge amount more needs to be done if Scotland is to be a fully literate nation. I hope that we can advance that ambition in what has thus far been a substantially consensual debate.

Given the economic world in which we live, a critical point is that it is not just at an individual level that poor literacy has a negative impact. According to some estimates, poor literacy costs the UK economy between £198 million and £2.5 billion every year. I have not done the Barnett calculation to work out the figure for Scotland—mathematics was never my strong suit.