Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 2:45 pm on 7 June 2000.
We come now to amendment 17, which is grouped with amendments 1, 22 and 23.
The bill places a statutory obligation on Scottish ministers to try to secure improvements in the quality of school education. That is welcome, but it is not good enough. If amendment 17, which I lodged, is accepted, it would place an obligation on Scottish
I take it that we all want an improvement in the quality of school education, but what happens if such an improvement does not take place? If the finger were pointed at Scottish ministers, they could defend themselves by saying that they had tried but that the failure was the fault of the local education authority or the teachers.
Ministers are smart at setting targets and placing obligations on teachers to achieve those targets, but they are not so smart about placing obligations on themselves. If an inspector or a head teacher told a teacher that he or she was not achieving the set target and the teacher replied by saying that he or she was trying to reach the targets, the head teacher or the inspector would say that that was not good enough. Ministers should have a similar obligation not only to try to improve standards but to achieve an improvement in standards.
As things stand, it would be hard to enforce section 3(1) through the courts. If ministers are accused of failing to bring about an improvement, they could say in their defence that they were nevertheless trying to bring about an improvement, even if their best efforts were clearly not good enough. In his written evidence, Tom Mullen of the University of Glasgow school of law said that
"the duty is weaker than the existing duty of local authorities under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 . . . There would be no obligation to achieve the underlying goal of the legislation which is to improve standards. In theory they could meet their legal obligations even if educational standards in schools go down. By contrast the duty under the 1980 Act was to achieve the goal of adequate and efficient provision of school education not merely to try to do so".
New Labour ministers are constantly trying to tell us that they support modernisation. However, their obligation under this bill would be less than the obligation that was set by a Tory act of Parliament 20 years ago. That is not modernisation; it is turning back the clock. The parents and children in our schools deserve much better. Parents should be given an assurance that, if standards do not improve, some body or bodies at ministerial level will take responsibility. I fear that, unless my amendment is passed, the ministers will be able to pass the buck and blame the teachers, the parents or the pupils. Ministers must face up to their responsibilities. That is why there should be a statutory obligation on them to improve the quality of education in our schools.
I move amendment 17.
I call Jamie Stone to speak to amendments 22 and 23.
Amendment 22 seeks to insert, after the word "school" on page 4, line 5, the words
"have access without cost to the development plan and the report upon request and".
Like other members of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, I support the notion of involving children and young people as much as possible in the education process. The bill, as agreed at stage 2, allows children and young people to receive copies of a summary of the development plan, but I feel that they should have access to the plan itself. That would help to inform young people and pupils and to make them feel included. Not all pupils will fall over themselves to get a copy of the plan, but I commend amendment 22 to the Parliament. It would be a move in the right direction and would send out an inclusive message to our young people that they matter as much as the teachers, parents and councillors do.
I support amendment 17, in the name of Dennis Canavan. He argued the case for his amendment convincingly. It is an amendment that I had previously lodged at stage 2.
The purpose of the amendment is to strengthen the duty on ministers. It takes account of the views of Tom Mullen of the University of Glasgow, who said of the duty imposed on ministers by section 3 in its current form:
"In theory, they could meet their legal obligations even if educational standards . . . go down."
That is a damning indictment of the legal effect of section 3 as it stands. It is effectively a con trick on the Scottish public. It says that ministers want to act tough when it comes to raising educational standards, but in fact they are not under any legal obligation whatever to bring about those improvements.
The Education, Culture and Sport Committee stage 1 report commented on that. It said that
"the Committee was concerned about how meaningful the duties imposed were . . . The Committee takes the view that the duties on Ministers and education authorities must be enforceable if they are to be meaningful. However, we are not convinced that the duties imposed by section 3 will be enforceable".
The problem with section 3 in its current form is the degree of discretion afforded to ministers. Amendment 17 would cut that discretion and, in doing so, would make the duties more meaningful and more enforceable.
As Dennis Canavan rightly said, we have a right to expect that ministers will not simply try to raise educational standards but that, once in a while, they will actually deliver on raising educational standards. Let us say what we mean in legislation,
I remind members that the debate on the section must, according to the motion that has been passed, be concluded at 3.20 pm, which does not give us much time for the debate on Gaelic education. We lost three minutes in voting time, which is counted in the total time, so we should move on quickly. I call Peter Peacock to respond to the amendments and to speak to amendment 1.
I will try to deal with all the amendments, beginning with amendment 17. The new duty that Scottish ministers are placed under by section 3 is quite clear; it was discussed and agreed after long debate at stage 2. Section 3 requires that ministers
"endeavour to secure improvement in the quality of school education . . . and they shall exercise their powers in relation to such provision with a view to raising standards".
In section 3, we have indicated clearly our commitment to work to improve Scottish education. That is an appropriate duty that takes account of the responsibility shared between local authorities, the Executive, parents and pupils. The responsibility, therefore, does not fall uniquely on one organisation or one individual. We are clear that improvement can be delivered only on the basis of partnership. For that reason, it would be inappropriate to place Scottish ministers under an absolute duty to secure improvement in the school education system, given that the responsibilities are in different hands.
Contrary to what Dennis Canavan said, the new duty in section 3 is additional to the duty in section 1 of the 1980 act. It is clearly the case that we do not, as ministers, indicate any reduction in the Executive's commitment to raising standards and delivering improvement. Our position simply reflects the key element of partnership that is central to the endeavour of securing improvement in education.
It is also the case that the Parliament provides scrutiny of ministers' activities, and I am sure that Dennis Canavan would be one of the first to ensure that that happens. Scrutiny is also provided by the committee system of the Parliament, questions and so on. Moreover, I am quite clear that the First Minister will ensure that his ministers are delivering for him; if any of us falls short on that, I think that we know what to expect as a consequence. There is no doubt about those matters.
Amendment 1 is technical. Section 3(2) places education authorities under two new duties in relation to securing improvement in school education and raising standards in education. A reference to the duties under that section
On amendment 22—
On a point of order. As the sound system is not working, can we suspend the meeting? The timetable for debate has been set and we are losing valuable time.
All I can suggest is that we adjourn the meeting. The timings for the debate will be adjusted.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
I will add 35 minutes to the scheduled time, which means that consideration of this group of amendments will now finish at 3.55 pm instead of 3.20 pm. We are all back in order, except that the microphones in the row immediately behind John Home Robertson are not working. Members should not look so alarmed; it just means that those sitting in that row cannot talk to us—if you want to do so or to vote, you will have to move temporarily to another desk.
Mr Peacock, you were saying?
In the interests of time, I will recommend that the Parliament accept amendment 22 in the name of Jamie Stone.
I understand the concern behind amendment 23, in the name of Jamie Stone, which seeks to ensure that authorities take action to deal with an underperforming school within six months of the review of the school's performance. As it is important that authorities take action as soon as a problem is identified, I am concerned that a requirement for the review to be undertaken within a specific time scale of six months might lead authorities to believe that they do not have to take immediate action but can delay for up to that length of time. Although I know that that is not the intention behind Jamie Stone's amendment, that might be the practical effect. As a result, I cannot support amendment 23 and ask Jamie Stone to withdraw it.
In conclusion, I ask members not to press amendments 17 and 23 and to accept amendments 1 and 22.
Thank you very much.
In view of the loss of time, I propose to change my ruling on the two-minute vote. If members are agreed, we will limit all votes to 30 seconds, just to
Members behind the glass screens at the back of the chamber had better be warned.
Mr Canavan, do you wish to respond to Mr Peacock?
In that case, I will now put the question. The question is, that amendment 17, in the name of Dennis Canavan, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You have just ruled that there will be a limit of 30 seconds for votes. However, I regret to say that some members were not in the chamber when you gave that ruling. With all due respect, I feel that you might have to extend this first vote for a moment to let them come into the chamber.
I take your point; I see members scurrying in.
I will take the vote again, giving 30 seconds. As I said, 30 seconds, not two minutes, will be allowed for all the votes from now on. I remind members that the system in the row behind John Home Robertson is not functioning, so members should not sit there.
The question is, that amendment 17, in the name of Dennis Canavan, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
There will be a division. [Interruption.]
The voting system is not working. [Interruption.]
I wonder whether it would save time if we took this vote by a show of hands. [Interruption.] It seems that my screen is defective. However, the clerk's is working, so we can proceed to the division on amendment 17.
Division number 3
For: Adam, Brian, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Cunningham, Roseanna, Elder, Dorothy-Grace, Ewing, Dr Winnie, Ewing, Fergus, Ewing, Mrs Margaret, Fabiani, Linda, Gibson, Mr Kenneth, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGugan, Irene, Morgan, Alasdair, Munro, Mr John, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Salmond, Mr Alex, Sheridan, Tommy, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Ullrich, Kay, White, Ms Sandra, Wilson, Andrew
Against: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Galbraith, Mr Sam, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Harding, Mr Keith, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, Mr John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Jenkins, Ian, Johnston, Nick, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McLeish, Henry, McLetchie, David, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Monteith, Mr Brian, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Mundell, David, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Raffan, Mr Keith, Scanlon, Mary, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Tosh, Mr Murray, Wallace, Ben, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Young, John
The result of the division is: For 33, Against 79, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17 disagreed to.
Amendment 1 moved—[Peter Peacock]—and agreed to.