Hansard

Like others, I thank everyone who helped the committee in our gathering of evidence. It was more of a challenge than usual, partly because of the eclectic mix of issues that are contained in the bill, and partly because of the chaotic approach that the Government took to consultation, which appeared to be on-going as we considered the bill with regard to General Teaching Council for Scotland registration in independent schools, the statutory requirement for a chief education officer and a range of other issues in relation to which it was clear that prior consultation had not taken place.

The most egregious of those issues, as Mary Scanlon identified, concerned the mandatory minimum number of teaching hours. No evidence was provided for that proposal. It came out of left field at the 11th hour. Earlier, I heard the cabinet secretary tell us about the problems that had been building up, but she was before the committee in November and at that stage she gave no hint that the issue was even at the back of her mind. Whatever the merits of the proposal—we are prepared to have a debate about that—the lack of evidence for it and the problems that Mary Scanlon noted would be caused by such a provision in certain parts of the country suggest that this is no way to run a railway. In a Parliament with no revising chamber, it is important that committees get early sight of Government proposals.

I want to touch on a couple of key aspects of the bill. I warmly welcome the extension of rights in relation to provisions around additional support for learning and I thank the minister for his engagement on those issues. I realise that we have reached an honest disagreement in terms of our approach to the issue. It is regrettable that we have not been able to adopt the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991 and the presumption of capacity at the age of 12, which is embedded in practice and, over two decades, has been demonstrated to work. Nevertheless, I welcome the provisions in the bill and hope that we can find a way of making them work effectively in practice.

I agree with the Government that we must attach a priority to tackling inequality. Time will tell whether the requirements in the bill lead simply to further reporting of activity rather than more effective activity on the ground, including partnership working. It is regrettable that the attainment fund is targeted using an area basis rather than being focused on the needs of individual pupils. I cannot see how that squares with the commitment to close the attainment gap completely. I think that a pupil premium that is targeted on the needs of individual children, wherever they live, is a far more effective approach.

The obsession with national primary school testing will come to be regretted. As the emeritus professor of education at the University of Strathclyde said, it is difficult to see national standardised testing as anything other than “a retrograde step”, out of sync with the vision of curriculum for excellence.

There are elements of the bill that are worthy. I am still reeling from the rare experience of having a successful amendment, although I think that some of the Scottish Government claims about the impact might be slightly hyperbolic. In the context of the £500 million-worth of cuts to council budgets, the impact that the move will have on education and wider children’s services is yet to be seen.

We will continue to oppose the proposals for national primary school testing, but I confirm that the Liberal Democrats will support the bill at decision time.