Hansard

I have explained that the 1p increase would deliver an extra £475 million a year to education. As a former spokesman on finance for the Liberal Democrats, I am sure that Chic Brodie would acknowledge that.

This year’s funding that is available south of the border equated to £1,320 per primary pupil and £935 per secondary pupil. For an average-sized school, with average numbers in receipt of free school meals, that represents £200,000. Many schools use the funding for individual coaching, but other projects have included summer classes for pupils moving from primary to secondary school and transport for extra-curricular activities.

According to the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills—Ofsted—in 2014,

“The pupil premium is making a difference in many schools.”

Similarly, the National Audit Office noted last year that

“Early signs are that the pupil premium has potential”.

That is effusive praise, by auditor standards.

Are there areas that need improvement? Yes. Will it take time for the approach to demonstrate its full value? Probably. Is it delivering results in closing the attainment gap at primary and secondary levels in England and does it merit being rolled out here in Scotland? Absolutely.

The minister’s spin doctor was busy earlier in the week dismissing the idea as “unfunded” and “unproven”. Both of those are untrue. I presume that that spin doctor is less open to embracing new ideas than the First Minister and Ms Constance declare themselves to be.

The Labour Party seems to be supportive of the idea of a pupil premium, although the thesaurus has been used to find other ways of expressing the approach. However, I genuinely welcome its support for the principle of targeting funding at the needs of the individual child—which is something that the Labour peer Lord Adonis, who is a fan of the pupil premium, argued for strongly.

Meanwhile, the Tory amendment claims that it was all Dave’s idea. I question that. The political drive behind the pupil premium certainly came from Liberal Democrat ministers in the previous UK Government. Nevertheless, I welcome Liz Smith’s support, although clarity is needed on how the Tories plan to pay for such an approach north of the border. I am sure that Ms Smith will come to that in her speech.

It seems as though the Scottish National Party is the only party that is advocating an area-based approach, rather than one that is based on the needs of the individual child. That is a shame, but it will not stop the Scottish Liberal Democrats continuing to argue for a more effective and well-funded approach.

The gaps in attainment and achievement continue to scar lives by preventing the potential of each and every individual from being realised. Those gaps are a drag on our economy and, invariably, a cost on our society. That is just one of the reasons why Scottish Liberal Democrats have taken the decision to prioritise not just education, but the means of delivering the ends. It would be the biggest investment in education since devolution, and it could deliver transformational change. I hope that, in the next session, Parliament will have the courage to use the powers at its disposal to make that happen.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the introduction of a pupil premium in Scotland would help enable every child to fulfil their potential, close the attainment gap and ensure a world-class education system; believes that it would give schools thousands of pounds of extra funding that they could spend to raise standards and increase attainment in every classroom; notes that it could provide practical support such as one-to-one tuition, extra staff and equipment, breakfast clubs and outreach programmes to help engage parents; recalls that Liberal Democrats in the previous UK administration successfully made the case for, and introduced, the pupil premium in England in 2011, now worth £2.5 billion a year, and that the party also subsequently secured its introduction in Wales; notes that Ofsted has said that the pupil premium “is making a difference” and that the National Audit Office observed that the gap between disadvantaged and other pupils narrowed by 4.7% in primary schools and 1.6% in secondary schools between 2011 and 2014, following its introduction; notes that, in comparison, the Attainment Scotland Fund only makes a difference in those areas and schools selected by Scottish ministers, currently ignoring the additional needs of disadvantaged children in 11 out of 32 local authorities; believes that tying funding to those children who need extra help the most, wherever they may live, through the pupil premium, would be fairer and more effective, and calls for it to be urgently introduced to help propel Scottish schools back to the top of the class.