Meeting of the Parliament 02 February 2016
During the committee’s evidence gathering at stage 1, we heard criticism of the bill’s provisions that are aimed at reducing inequalities of outcome in our education system. The concerns were not about the aspiration of reducing those inequalities and closing the attainment gap, although questions were asked about what that meant and whether it is possible to close the gap completely, as the First Minister and the education secretary have promised to do; rather, the concern was that the bill would do nothing to achieve that shared aspiration. Keir Bloomer memorably described the Government’s proposals as
“pious thinking masquerading as law making.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 9 June 2015; c 20.]
Others suggested that, although poverty undoubtedly lies at the root of inequality of outcome, in many cases it is by no means the sole factor.
The evidence clearly shows that the education system is not delivering consistently for those with additional needs, including those with speech and language needs. Despite what George Adam says, those are not related solely to the issue of poverty or, as Iain Gray suggested, to those in the care system.
I therefore support George Adam’s amendment, as well as those lodged by Mark Griffin in group 2. However, I make a plea. It is all very well putting safeguards of that nature into legislation but if ministers accept the amendments they have to be fully resourced. If councils are not funded to deliver those aspirations, it would look more like pious thinking than serious policy making.
14:30