Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Education and Culture Committee. This is the 30th meeting of the Education and Culture Committee in 2015. My name is Stuart Maxwell. I am an MSP for the west of Scotland and also a convener of the committee. The committee, I have to say, is delighted to be here in Dumfirmolon today in the city chambers as part of the Parliament Day events. I thank everybody for their warm welcome and welcome everybody here as part of the committee meeting. I have to say also it's great to see some people here in attendance at the meeting. Hopefully you haven't come too far and you haven't got too wet in getting here, but thank you very much for your interest in the committee's work. But can I remind everybody that you must have all electronic devices switched off at all times during the meeting, whether that be phones or any other electronic devices? Please make sure they're switched off because they do interfere with sound system. I don't want to interrupt the committee to have to stop if somebody's phone rings. Today, we are continuing our stage to consideration of the Education Scotland Bill. I welcome Angela Constance, Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, and her accompanying officials. Officials, of course, are not permitted to participate in the formal proceedings. I also welcome Liz Smith, MSP, who is back again with us this week in committee. Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill as introduced, the second marshaled list of amendments, and the second groupings of amendments. For each debate, I will call the member who lodged the First Amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all other amendments in the group. All other members with amendments in the group, including the Cabinet Secretary of Relevance, will then be asked to speak to them. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate that by catching me or the clerk's attention. If she has not already spoken on the group, I will invite the Cabinet Secretary to contribute to the debate just before moving to the winding-up speeches. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the First Amendment in the group to wind up. Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the First Amendment in the group wishes to press it or to vote, to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put that question to the committee on the amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek approval to do so. If any member objects, the committee immediately moves to a vote on that amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say not moved. Please note that any other MSP may move such an amendment if they wish to do so. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by a show of hands and it is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point in the proceedings. Moving on to the actual voting and discussion for today's business, we are before I start the first debate, I want to just remind members that this is another big section in the bill and therefore I will allow extra flexibility in this one. If members wish to come in, ask questions or intervene, they are quite welcome to do so. Given the size and the complexity of this particular section, I will be as lenient as possible with members so that they are allowed to cover the issues that they need to cover. With that, can I call amendment 104 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with the other amendments shown in the groupings? Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 104 and speak to all other amendments in the group. Okay, thank you convener and good morning to committee. Collectively and individually, the government amendments in this group seek to give effect to and support our key priorities of delivering equity and excellence for all children and closing the attainment gap that exists between children from our most and least deprived communities. The key government amendments in this group are 104, 106 and 107, and they are interrelated and I will focus mostly on them. I will also respond to the non-government amendments that have been brought forward and I would like to thank all those MSPs who have invested time and effort to consider how this element of the bill can be enhanced. Consequently, this group of amendments is significant in size as well as purpose so I would ask for the committee and the convener's forbearance as I talk to this group. The government amendments have been framed to take accounts of views expressed by a wide range of partners both through our consultation on the national improvement framework and through the constructive evidence taken by this committee during stage 1. If agreed, all of the amended sections will become part of the Standards in Scotland Schools etc Act 2000, resulting in a single coherent piece of legislation covering all aspects of educational improvement, a step that many have welcomed. Amendments 104, 105, 108 and 109 adjust the inequalities of outcome duties, which form part 1 of the bill at introduction. In line with the committee's suggestion at stage 1, we have strengthened the due regard duties being placed on education authorities and ministers. The duties no longer talk about the desirability of narrowing the attainment gap. Instead, the bill now recognises such action to be a necessity. The duty on education authorities has also been extended so that it not only covers the making of strategic decisions but also the implementation of those decisions. Amendments 105 and 108 are consequential and remove the previous inequalities of outcome duties contained in sections 1 and 2 of the bill. Those changes represent a significant strengthening of this part of the bill, and we have listened to and taken on board the views of others. We have also given very careful consideration to amendments 104A and 104D lodged by Mark Griffin and 104B, 104C and 104F lodged by Malcolm Chisholm. Those amendments seek to extend the inequalities of outcome duties to specific groups of children, namely looked after children and children with certain health conditions. I absolutely accept that these children can also face challenges in relation to attainment. For that reason, they are already covered by provisions of the additional support for learning act. I have previously made clear that I am open to future discussions about how the regulation-making power that we are introducing might be used to support such children further. However, I am keen that we use this legislative opportunity to focus on particular challenges faced by children impacted by poverty. We already know that, too often, poverty and additional disadvantage are interlinked. Many of the children from whom we must close the attainment gap will be disabled or have a long-term, serious health condition or be looked after. I am confident that our approach and focus will reach them. The regulation-making power also allows us to review and potentially change that approach in the future. Accordingly, I do not consider amendments 104A, 104D, 104B, 104C and 104F to be necessary. We are all aware of the challenges faced by children grown up in poverty, not least in accessing the whole of school life. This Government is committed to addressing them and, while I welcome the intent of Mary Scanlon's amendment 104E, I do not think that it is necessary. I am absolutely clear that by placing a duty on Scottish ministers and education authorities to have due regard to closing the attainment gap that we are requiring action to address issues relating to access and participation. Similarly, there is limited value in Mark Griffin's amendment 161, which seeks to introduce a statutory responsibility on HM inspectors to inspect and report on one particular aspect of the quality of education that is provided by primary schools. Ministers can already direct inspectors to look at specific issues in a school or in an aspect of education under section 661 and 1AA of the Education Scotland Act 1980 and have done so in the past. Inspectors already consider and report on the differing performance of children from different backgrounds and situations across all stages of education. I would, however, like to offer my support for Mark Griffin's amendment 104G. I am sure that the committee will accept the importance of including all relevant parties in the new decision making process required by amendment 104. Amendment 104G ensures that our efforts to raise attainment by its nature at a complex issue are a shared endeavour. By recognising the crucial contribution that teachers can make to such decisions, in this case represented by their trade unions, I would now like to turn to amendments 106, 106B, 107A, 107B, 107C and 107D from Mary Scanlon and amendments 162 and 163 from Mark Griffin, which focus on the setting of targets. I want to make clear once again that this Government's stated aim is to close the attainment gap, not reduce it by a certain amount but close it entirely. This change will not happen overnight. Nevertheless, the challenge that we must set ourselves to settle for anything less would be to fail our children and young people. These amendments raise two key questions. How do we most effectively measure the progress our children are making and how do we assess the effectiveness of our efforts to address inequality? Can either be achieved through setting targets that focus on a very small number of measures and which view success through a narrow prism or focus on one element of learning, skewing our view of what a good education looks like or just give us a snapshot for a given group of children at a given time? Our experience with the target set as part of the standards in School Scotland Act 2000 and the national priorities for education, none of which were achieved, would suggest not. Target setting would also appear to go against the guiding principles of our education system and of curriculum for excellence, a curriculum designed to support every child to reach their full potential. Our approach of creating a national improvement framework aims to build on those guiding principles, creating a framework that will result in improved availability of high-quality data, not just in relation to the senior phase, as is currently the case, but at key points throughout a child's education. The framework will give parents, parliamentarians and the public regular reports describing the progress we are making, both to improve standards for all and to raise attainment for children disadvantaged in their learning across a range of measures. Those reports will provide the information that we need to assess the effectiveness of our collective approach and to identify together where further improvement is required. For those reasons, I cannot support those amendments. In my evidence to committee, I advised of my intention to give a statutory underpinning for the national improvement framework, which is what amendment 106 will achieve. It requires ministers to prepare such a framework to review annually, and amendment 129, also included in this group, amends the long title of the bill to reflect the establishment of the framework. Amendment 106 also declutters the current legislative landscape by removing the existing national priorities for education and associated reporting structures in the 2000 act, which I think is fair to say that our education system has moved on from significantly. In future, our priorities for the education system will be contained within the national improvement framework itself. They will be reviewed annually to reflect emerging trends and evidence gathered through the framework. That will allow us to respond quickly without the need for secondary legislation, a key shortcoming of the existing arrangements in the 2000 act. However, we will ensure that we consult and engage with key groups in our annual review, including education authorities, trade unions and, vitally in my view, children and young people and their parents. That continues the approach that we have taken in developing the draft national improvement framework. Since publishing it in September 2015, we have undertaken extensive engagement, reaching and listening carefully to the views of more than 5,000 children, young people, parents, teachers, educational professionals, academics and others. This engagement has identified widespread support for the priorities set out in the draft framework and a broad consensus that progress across the six drivers for improvement will deliver the benefits for children in Scotland that we all want to see. At the same time, questions around a number of issues have been raised and I want to reiterate the assurances already given by me and indeed the First Minister in Parliament and elsewhere on these. We intend to avoid the perversion centres associated with narrow and rigid approaches to national testing. We will support teachers' flexibility and autonomy to exercise their professional judgment. We acknowledge that this is key to assessing and supporting children's progress in their learning. We are determined to avoid the production of crude league tables. Amendment 107 introduces a series of duties on Scottish ministers and education authorities to produce annual plans and reports describing both past and future activity. The duties require that Government and education authorities set out the steps that we will take and report on the steps that we did take, as well as the benefits that we want to achieve and those that we have achieved. This is critical to creating a rigorous, evidence-led approach around the framework and our efforts to close the attainment gap with appropriate information being gathered systematically to inform decision making, the allocation of resources and other improvement activity. Given that we are committing to the publication of annual reports at both local and national levels and indeed an annual review of the national improvement framework, I cannot see what value could be added by Mark Griffin's suggestion made through amendment 160, which seems to call for a one-off review approach to closing the attainment gap when we are committed to continual improvement. Further, the idea that this review should describe our plans around the setting of income tax rates seems to me to be inappropriate. Revenue generated from the Scottish rate resolution or devolved taxes will be added to the total funding available to Scottish ministers. It is then for ministers to decide how all the resources available to them should be allocated. As we have seen, this Government has had no hesitation in finding the necessary additional resources to give effect to our ambition of closing the attainment gap. To assist education authorities to maintain a focus on equity and excellence and on closing the attainment gap, my amendment 107 requires them to prepare and publish an annual statement on how they will encourage equal opportunities. Those arrangements replace those previously set out in section 5 of the 2000 act, which has been repealed by amendment 106. The detail underpinning the planning and reporting arrangements that I have described will be set out in statutory guidance accompanying the bill. That guidance will now be issued under the existing section 13 of the 2000 act, hence the removal of section 3 of the bill through amendment 109. I am happy to support Mary Scanlon's amendment 159, which puts beyond doubt the need for the guidance to be the subject of appropriate consultation. None of my amendments specify the content of the framework or indeed the detail of assessment. That is deliberate. It would be inappropriate to specify its exact contents on the face of primary legislation. The framework will evolve reflecting emerging trends within our system and supporting informed decision making at all levels. It is important that we allow for this and do not create legislation that unnecessarily restricts flexibility and innovation. At the heart of these amendments is our ambition to create an approach to improvement that everyone agrees is proportionate, meaningful, robust, consistent and, frankly, useful to achieving our priority purposes of closing the attainment gap while also raising standards for all. We can agree a number of principles on which to anchor our approach for measuring children's progress. In line with the best practice internationally, we will have a full range of evidence under one comprehensive framework that will tell us how our education system is improving and where further action is needed. Teacher judgment will form the bedrock of the assessment process around children's progress on curriculum for excellent levels, as it does now. For the first time, teachers will have access to consistent national standardised assessment data for individual children designed specifically to support curriculum for excellence, which will help to inform their judgment of children's progress in literacy and numeracy. Teachers will be able to use the standardised assessment during the school year to help inform their judgments about and action to support individual children. Assessment must be used in a way that both informs and elicits timely action to improve outcomes for children. We will undertake work to bring greater clarity and consistency around standards within curriculum levels and other pieces of assessment evidence that can be collected by teachers to inform their professional judgment. We will collect and publish a range of data that will provide consistent, robust and transparent information to support improvement. We will collect and publish nationally and locally teacher judgment information on the achievement of curriculum for excellence levels for literacy and numeracy initially at key points in primary and early secondary school. Parents and the public will be able to access this teacher judgment information consistent across school and local authorities through such portals as the parents' own website. Schools will be able to use both standardised assessment data and teacher's judgment about the progress of individual children to inform discussions with parents about children's progress and achievements. This key part of our approach will give parents more consistent and specific information about their own children's progress and their learning, helping to signal to them where they can help and support their children. Local authorities will also want to know how schools in their area are doing, whether and how they have improved attainment, not least to help fulfil their new statutory planning and reporting duties. I, as Cabinet Secretary, will want to know how we are doing at a national level to close the attainment gap and to identify where we are making progress and where we might have more to do again to help to meet the new duties being placed on ministers. Clearly, assessment is just one part of the framework and this has been somewhat overlooked during much of the recent debate around the framework. At the same time, it is widely accepted that assessment tools can play an important role in learning and that is why teachers across Scotland already use them. What has emerged during this debate is a realisation that, although many are already using some form of standardised assessment, there is still a range of tools out there that assess different things in different ways. We simply could not construct a national picture of how our children are doing from the information local authorities already gather. It is disappointing therefore that Liam McArthur's amendment 106A does not recognise the need and, importantly, the benefits from a shift to a national standardised assessment to rule out an approach that will provide us with consistent and meaningful data at all levels. It seems short-sighted and I cannot support Mr McArthur's amendment. When we are designing the assessment, we will be sure to learn from the experience of other countries. Indeed, we are committed to considering how our whole education system compares with the experiences and efforts of other countries around the world, hence the inclusion of a new requirement within section 3G2 of the 2000 act for all annual reports produced by Scottish ministers to take account of relevant international benchmarking data. However, suggesting that those considerations be restricted to the incomplete list of surveys set out within Mark Griffin's amendment 107E, some of which are relevant and some such as Talis Laisol, makes no sense. I am confident that the finalised framework, which will be published early in the new year, will carry broad support. We have engaged and involved those with an interest in the significant development in our education system and we have worked hard to assage concerns while listening to views to help develop its content. So, taking together the amendments in my name, supplemented by Mark Griffin's amendment 104G and Mary Scanlon's amendment 159, we will provide us with strong foundations for delivering sustained improvement across our education system in the years to come and, importantly, enable us to monitor improvement and progress to close the attainment gap. I encourage the committee to support those amendments and I move amendment 104. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Before I call Mark Griffin, can I just welcome to the committee this morning the People's of Commercial Primary School? It's good to see you here. Welcome to the Education and Culture Committee and can I call Mark Griffin to move amendment 104A and speak to all amendments in the group? Thank you, convener. I move amendment 104A in my name. I believe that we need to put looked after children at the heart of the attainment gap challenge. What we are seeking to do is provide an eco footing for Scotland's kids in care on the new focus on children from poorer backgrounds under this amendment. We are seeking to ensure that local authorities would have to set out measures on how they tackle the attainment gap for both looked after children and children from deprived backgrounds. We know that education is one of the most important economic policies that we can pursue if we can give every child a work class education and they in Scotland will be able to take advantage of the amazing opportunities that that future will bring. The Government will be judged on how it supports the most disadvantaged people in our society. I do not think that they come much more disadvantaged than young people in care. The system seems to be failing them in ways that it fails no one else. The state owes a particular duty of care to these children because they are all of our children. The state is the parent. We pay the bills and we have ultimate responsibility for their upbringing and their future. I do not believe that we can address the attainment gap without addressing the educational needs of our young people in care. I think that it is of utmost importance that it should be on the face of the bill. On amendment 104G, I appreciate the Government's support on this and I will not keep committee too long on that. The amendment provides a duty on local authorities to consult with representatives of trade unions when setting out their measures to tackle the attainment gap. We believe that that input from those trade union representatives and those people who will be on the front line of delivering that education and closing the educational attainment gap is key to the success in both the planning and the implementation of any measures. I am grateful for the Government's support on amendment 107E. The national improvement framework will result in a new era of data being gathered by the Scottish Government on educational performance and outcomes. That new data will rightly support the Government and the Parliament in taking the necessary measures to close the attainment gap and scrutinising the Government's performance against other comparator countries. In light of that new data that is going to be gathered, I believe that international best practice should be at the centre of that new approach. My amendment 107E would require the Government to look again at the international benchmarks and how they interact with the national improvement framework. These studies are namely, as I have tabled in my mind, the study known as trends in international mathematics and science study, the study known as progress in international reading literacy study, the survey known as the OECD teaching and learning international survey. I take on board what the Cabinet Secretary has said as to whether she believes that these studies are relevant or not. The evidence that we have taken from professionals in the field is that these are the international benchmarks that we should be setting ourselves against. I think that when the Government is taking this step towards standardised testing that with that new data being collected, if we can configure that data collection in such a way where it marries with these international studies and international comparisons, that would be the best way forward to allow us as parliamentarians in the country to scrutinise Government's performance. We are all ambitious about the future of our country. We want to cut the gap between the richest and the rest in our classrooms to make Scottish education the best in the world. I do not want to measure the educational performance in our success against countries across the UK, but countries across the world. By undertaking such a review, we would be able to look again at how we benchmark progress in Scottish education against countries across the developed world. Scotland, as an outward-looking confident country, should be prepared to participate in well-recognised authoritative international studies. On amendment 160, I believe in closing the attainment gap in our schools and we support the Government in their intention to do so. We remain concerned though that, without focusing additional resources on those who need it most, the goodwill and efforts of the Parliament and Government will be lost. That is why we are asking the Government to review the progress being made on the aims of this bill and specifically look at whether extra resources will be required in the context of additional tax raise and powers coming to the Parliament. That would include looking specifically at whether we should raise taxes on the higher earners to raise extra revenue for those most deprived pupils. The truth is how much we care about this issue will be demonstrated by how much we are willing to invest in it. It is well rehearsed in the chamber and in other places in that Labour members believe that we should commit to a higher rate of income tax for higher earners and devote those resources to closing the gap and accept that legislation is not where such a policy would lie but we would explore ways to ensure that the eventual legislation required a proper consideration of the resources and the new additional resources that would be available to Government that could be devoted to achieving the purpose of the bill. We are not asking the Scottish Government or Members to commit to that position on a higher rate of income tax. While that is our position, we are simply asking the Government to review the case for further resources once this act is in place and additional powers come to this Parliament. On amendment 161, we believe that in order to facilitate closing the attainment gap that this should become a central part of the school inspection regime, a new duty on Education Scotland to look at the measure schools are taken to reduce the gap in legislation will be to ensure that schools are focusing their efforts on closing the attainment gap, promote greater public understanding of this Government priority and raise the profile of the issue, ensure that schools are recognised for the work that they are doing to close the attainment gap and allow Education Scotland to share the findings of schools who are succeeding in this area and those which are not. As part of the Education Scotland review of the 2014-15 year, it suggests that a new short focused visit approach should be used in session 2015-16. This will involve visiting a school for a shorter period of two and a half days with a smaller number of inspectors. Some of these visits will be tried out in a short notice basis of two working days and others will follow a two working week notification period. The visits will have a specific focus on raising attainment and achievement and how a school is addressing the need to close the attainment gap and teaching, learning and assessment. Given that this need is already recognised by Education Scotland and the current focus from all parties on the need to close the gap, this measure, along with others, will help monitor and evaluate progress in this area. Finally, convener, on amendments 162 and 163, we believe that a strong legislative framework is needed to secure faster progress in closing the attainment gap in every part of Scotland. We particularly believe that an ambitious goal is needed to help to close the socio-economic attainment gap in children's literacy. Specifically, we want to see a clear approach and ambitious timescales for making progress set out in legislation. The Cabinet Secretary says that we will not close the attainment gap overnight, and that is right, but we do want to see an ambitious target in place to see that gap closing as soon as possible. If we are just to accept, it is not going to close overnight. We do need to see the government set ambitious targets. As they have done in other areas of national policy, we have national targets for fuel poverty, for climate change reduction and child poverty eradication. There is no one saying that ambitious targets in these areas somehow detract from the overall aim of abolishing child poverty. We believe that enshrining targets in legislation will clearly articulate the scale of the government's aims in relation to closing the gap. It will promote the greater public understanding of the key government priority and I think what is the key priority of all MSPs in the parliament and raise the profile of the issue further. It will demonstrate the changes that need to occur to be successful and ensure that future Governments remain committed to this vital objective. Achieving these goals in Scotland will require greater focus on supporting improvement for the poorest children who are most likely to fall behind whilst being consistent with the responsibilities of education authorities to support all children's attainment and therefore drive a more effective strategic approach to closing the attainment gap at national and local level. Closing the literacy gap at present, 12% of children are not reading well by the time they finish primary school. The majority of these children live in the most deprived areas and this is a key driver of the attainment gap in Scotland and is damaging implications for children's outcome in later life. We believe that to close the attainment gap, the immediate priority must be for schools, parents, teachers and Government to secure rapid improvement in literacy outcomes, particularly for the poorest children. Evidence suggests that this is an achievable goal and that considerable progress can be made over the next decade. We also suggest that attainment gap targets within the legislation could build on the existing attainment goals that already exist and currently being worked through the early years collaborative and raising attainment for all initiatives. These already include a goal for 90% of children participating in areas achieving all of the expected development milestones by the time they start primary school by the end of 2017 and a goal for 85% of children in certain cluster schools to have successfully experienced and achieved CFE, second level literacy numeracy and health and wellbeing outcomes in preparation for secondary schools by 2016. The issue with these current goals is that they do not ensure that improvements are made for the poorest of children, those who make up the majority of that 10% to 15% of struggling learners who are not included in their ambitions, do not have the national coverage and do not have a statutory status. As I said at the beginning, I move amendment 104A and ask members to support other amendments in my name and in the group. Thank you very much. Mark, before I call John Pentland, can I just welcome a second group from commercial primary school, pupils from commercial primary school. Welcome to the education and culture committee. I call John Pentland to speak to amendment 104B and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. In moving amendment 104B, 104C and 104F in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, he believes in putting forward these amendments that will help to reduce pupils' inequalities and strengthen outcomes. He believes that there is a problem with essential medication or treatment that is not provided during school hours. That adversely impacts on those children's learning and increases inequality to the detriment of those who are already disadvantaged. In the education additional support for learning Scotland Act 2004 does not specifically address this issue. The guidance in current usage is insufficient, out of date and extensively ignored, and this concern has been echoed by the Office of the Commissioner for Children and Young People. If it were included, the working group developing new guidance would be greatly assisted by a mandatory basis for access for medication and medical treatment. Mr Chisholm also notes that article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have the right to good quality healthcare and the best healthcare possible. Without a mandatory cause, the health and educational outcomes of some children and young people will suffer and the attainment gap between those from more affluent backgrounds and those living with disadvantaged may increase. John Pentland to speak to amendment 104E and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. First of all, I say that it is a great privilege to sit in this very grand room in Dunferlun. I sit looking at the first provision of Dunferlun 1424. It is worth acknowledging our wonderful surroundings today. My first point is to thank Angela Constance for getting rid of a bit of gobbledygook. The school pupils today will better understand the bill, because what the cabinet secretary has done in 1043A is to remove having due regard to the desirability of exercising the power and to replace that with due regard to the need. I think that that is very important when we are passing legislation that it is written in a way that people can understand. I would first like to thank her for that. The second point is on the national improvement framework. If we look at 3C, I just read in pursuance of the duty imposed on them in section 3, Scottish ministers must prepare and publish a statement setting out strategic priorities and objectives in relation to school education, the national improvement framework. The problem is that we will not see the national improvement framework until January. We have a bit more of an idea of what is likely to be contained in it this morning from the cabinet secretary, but what will it be based on, what will be reviewed, what is it, what does it look like? The fact is that we do not know. We will know in January, I look forward to that, but it would have been helpful had we known that prior to today. I missed the debate when the cabinet secretary came to the committee. I thank every member, including yourself, for the questions. I thought that I would find some clarity about the national improvement framework in the discussions of the education committee on 17 November. However, what I find will be obligatory for local authorities to work towards delivering priorities contained in the framework. The assessment of children's progress is just such a priority, but this is quite different from anchoring the particular specification of a standard assessment. That is what the cabinet secretary said. Donabelle said something that was slightly different, but if I move on to Ian Gray's question and indeed your own, is it your expectation that local authorities will stop doing what they are currently doing? Given that 27 out of 32 have some form of testing, the cabinet secretary said that yes, it is. I am a little bit less than clear about the testing, but there is one thing that I am clear about. Children who have lower attainment at schools do not always live in what we would know as a deprived area. I say that as a member of the Parliament for the Highlands and Islands. That is why it is very difficult to count children from poorer backgrounds and widening access in remote and rural areas. The Scottish index of multiple deprivation does not apply in rural areas. People from the richest households sit alongside pupils from the poorest households in village schools across the Highlands and Islands. For that reason, I would not want all of the attainment to be focused on deprived areas or schools in deprived areas but also to focus on some form of assessment so that, regardless of what school a child goes to, that child's ability to achieve a greater attainment level will be highlighted through some form of assessment that will be picked up, no child will be left behind and that child, regardless of background, school, area, geography, island or mainland, will be given the help that that child needs in order to improve attainment. For that reason, we will not be supporting Liam. I will not be supporting Liam MacArthur's amendment 106A. Amendments 107C and the amendments from Mark Griffin. I commend Mark Griffin. I think that the Labour Party is attempting to make a bit of sense of something that is still fairly nebulous at this stage, but I listened carefully to the cabinet secretary's points and whether some of those amendments were necessary or not. I come to my own amendments, convener. I am grateful to the child poverty action group in Scotland for bringing forward these probing amendments, which are relevant to the content of the bill. There are wider issues to be discussed and it is appropriate to do so in the scrutiny and process of the bill. I am grateful for the response of the cabinet secretary to these amendments and would be pleased to hear what other members have to say. Amendment 104E, financial barriers to access and participation. The amendment would place the duty on education authorities and Scottish ministers to ensure equality of access to and participation in education for all children in Scotland. Financial barriers to education can include the cost of the school uniform, getting to and from school, classroom materials, snacks and meals, IT equipment, trips and excursions, and the cost of clubs and extracurricular activities, among many other things. Indeed, for some children, there is a real risk that the costs associated with school are so great that they may undermine the right of equal access to a free education, as enshrined in the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child. It is for this reason that the child poverty action group sees that there is a need to measure and reduce inequalities of outcomes such as attainment and attainment gap. Education authorities and Scottish ministers would also have a duty to work with schools to report on the extent to which they have reduced inequality of access to and participation in education. They are seeking to look at poverty-proofing procedures and setting out how they intend, for example, that school trips are affordable as well as the need to buy expensive equipment. Steps of this nature are simple and often cost-neutral. They could be taken immediately by education authorities following consultation with parents. Amendment 106B will enable Scottish ministers to set attainment gap targets in relation to the national improvement framework. Above all, establishing targets will help to ensure that a suitable framework is in place to allow progress on reducing the attainment gap to be accurately measured. We started by talking about narrowing the attainment gap. I noticed that the First Minister and Cabinet Secretary are talking about closing the attainment gap. That is very different to where we started. If we are looking at closing, we need to see some form of markers there. What do we mean by the attainment gap? How do we measure the size? I think that those are obviously important points. The existence of a legislative target could help to ensure that efforts to close the attainment gap continue to be prioritised. That will illuminate the destination, helping to ensure that the path taken is quicker and more directed. The amendment is deliberately broadly drafted, allowing Scottish ministers time to consult with education authorities and other stakeholders and give in-depth consideration to what the best and most effective targets are. Amendments 1, 7, A, B, C and D would require education authorities and Scottish ministers to report on the steps that they have taken and those that they plan to take. Those four amendments state the steps to meet the targets, closing the attainment gap and, given that more needs to be known about what works in order to improve attainment, those amendments seem fairly sensible to meeting the central objective of the legislation, which is to reduce or to close the attainment gap. That takes me happily, convener, to amendment 159. I hope that the pupils here from the local school will realise that this is indeed a very historic occasion, because this is an occasion in which a Scottish Conservative amendment is likely to be successful. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that. However, the cabinet secretary, Angela Constance, in bringing forward the national improvement framework, deleted sections 1 to 4 of the bill. In one form or another, those sections are being replaced by the amendments that we have heard today, except that is for section 3, relating to consultation prior to issuing any guidance. If there is one thing that we are all learning in the process of this bill and the timing for amendments coming forward, it is that consultation is not only democratic, it is also respectful, courteous and gives all those working, if I can call it, at the chalk face and in councils the opportunity to scrutinise what we are doing today. I can only assume that this was an oversight, and I am delighted that the amendment has been accepted. I do not think that any of us would want to issue any guidance before consulting education authorities, parents, voluntary organisations or any other person that the Scottish Government should think appropriate. I am asking colleagues today for support on that issue. My next amendments are for another section of the bill, so I will finish there. I call Liam McArthur to speak to amendment 106A and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much. Can I perhaps start by offering Mary Scanlon some gentle advice that she may be in danger of overplaying her hand if the dark muttering is on this side of the table? She is at risk of, I think, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Could I also perhaps now that we are an hour in offer some reassurance to the pupils and staff of commercial primary school that the committee will at some stage get around to voting on these amendments, but this is indicated as a set of length and complex amendments. I do not think, and we have heard that already this morning, that any of us disputes the fact that we need to do more to allow all children to fulfil their potential. Too often a child's life chances are predetermined by the circumstances of their birth. The evidence consistently points to the fact that children from deprived backgrounds invariably finished their formal education with significantly lower levels of attainment than their more affluent peers. This is not acceptable. A determination to close the attainment gap is not new, but progress has been limited, glacially slow and a frustration for successive administrations, as well as MSPs of all political persuasions. In that sense, I certainly applaud any effort to make a meaningful breakthrough and to deliver effective change. As children in Scotland remind us in their briefing for today's session, the educational inequalities that stem from socioeconomic disadvantage are complex and multifaceted. And without decrying the attempts being made by the government through the establishment of a national improvement framework, children in Scotland have concluded there is a real concern within the sector over a number of controversial elements of the framework, as well as with the manner in which consultation with key stakeholders has been managed. This has been a common refrain in relation to this bill, and we find ourselves in the position, as Mary Scanlon indicated, of having to consider and vote on amendments to a framework that none of us has seen and which is children in Scotland teaching unions and others have made clear, is far from commanding universal agreement. That, frankly, is a ludicrous position for us to find ourselves in. Even the rationale for the framework has been questioned. We heard from various witnesses at stage one that inequalities have outcomeed, it was neither adequately defined nor set against any meaningful or measurable benchmarks. The framework in turn uses the term attainment gap as though there is universal acceptance or understanding as to what this means. This leads children in Scotland to accuse ministers of reducing what is a complex set of issues to an easily identifiable slogan with the hope that these issues will be amenable to equally short-term solutions. Such a damning conclusion has uncomfortable echoes with Keir Bloomer's earlier criticism of the government's approach in this bill as pious thinking masquerading as lawmaking. One of the clearest examples of this oversimplification is the determination by ministers to press ahead with national standardised testings for P147 and S3 pupils. This has been denounced by teaching unions as a backward step and few teachers can be found who have a good word to say about it. The minister's explanations to this committee last month, while doubtless well intentioned, simply created more confusion, uncertainty and indeed disbelief amongst those in the sector. She denies, as does the First Minister, that they are ushering in a return to high stakes testing, teaching to the test and league tables, yet few believe them. Assessment of pupils is at the heart of good teaching and that, the cabinet secretary is right, teachers do this on a daily basis, observing what happens in the classroom, marking pupils' work, gleaning information from the standardised tests that are already in place and crucially from an in-depth knowledge of the young person as an individual. The Scottish education system has no shortage of such data, particularly at classroom and school level. The focus should be on making better use of the wealth of information we already have, something that we heard in evidence last month. National standardised tests in literacy and numeracy simply will not provide a rounded evaluation of student learning. They also go against the whole ethos of curriculum for excellence. Such tests are prone to bias and human error, yet this information will be used by local and central government to form policy and substantiate decisions at all levels. The IT systems to support them are also incredibly expensive. Whether ministers believe they are sanctioning teaching to the test and league tables, these are an almost inevitable consequence of introducing national standardised testing in this way. My amendment 106A seeks to avoid this risk by removing such a provision from whatever is finally agreed in the NIF. More consultation is needed generally, and this will take time, but it is important that pupils, teachers and parents are given early reassurance that the ill-considered plans for national standardised testing will not be a feature of these discussions. Turning briefly to the other amendments in this group, while the Minister's amendment 104 in related changes are certainly an improvement on what was originally proposed, as Mary Scanlon highlighted earlier, I am worried by the extent, scale and implications of the reporting requirements being placed on local councils. This seems disproportionate, and in some cases counterproductive in terms of the activity that it will generate. That said, amendments 162 and 163 lend some strength to initiatives like Save the Children's Read on Get on campaign, which I have been very much in support of and therefore will be supporting those amendments. In terms of the amendments that Mark Griffin, Malcolm Chisholman and Mary Scanlon have lodged, all of which broadened out, I think, the definition of those likely to benefit from any concerted action to address these inequalities of outcome. I think these are worthy of some support and particularly supportive of Mark's proposals to specifically include those looked after and or in care. The Minister and sister of amendments give the option for the provisions to be so extended, but I think the difficulty is that at present the government only appears to formally recognise those affected by socioeconomic factors, and this I think could create an unintentional hierarchy of need, something that amendments 104A and the others could help avoid. Convener, I remain deeply unhappy about the position this committee has been put in as a result of the way in which the government has approached this bill and the fact that we are being asked to vote on amendments in a partial and in some respects a complete vacuum. I hope however the minister will heed the concerns that I have expressed, though I doubt it, backed by teaching unions and many in the education and wider children's sector and call a halt to their ill-thought-out plans for what one expert described to me earlier this week as, hopelessly blunt, one-size-fits-all national standardised testing. Thank you very much, Liam. If any other members wish to contribute to this debate now, could they please indicate, and I call Liz Smith? Thank you, convener, and thank you for allowing me to speak. I think that every party in the Scottish Parliament is absolutely determined to do something to raise attainment. I do not think that that is the doubt, and I commend the Scottish Government actually for putting that at the priority. I would echo some of the concerns that Liam McArthur and Mary Scanlon have raised about the timescale and the process by which we are looking at this national improvement framework, because I do not think that we know what the detail is, and therefore it is very difficult to make legislation at stage 2 proposed for stage 3 when we are not sure of that detail. Cabinet Secretary, when you come to sum up, I would be interested in some comments regarding the data that we do actually have on literacy and numeracy. We were told by Callum McRoe on 17 November that much of the data actually exists, which I presume is one of the reasons why you are trying to enshrine a lot of reporting to ensure that there is more consistency in that reporting. However, I think that the proposals, as they are just now, are very top-heavy in that reporting duty. I worry that we are going to place a burden on local authorities and on teachers when they are going to spend so much time actually reporting that it is going to be difficult for them actually to be getting on with the job in the classroom, which is the most important thing that they have to do. I think that when it comes to the concerns that we all have about, and I would say narrowing the gap, I think that it is difficult to talk about closing the gap altogether, but to narrow the gap, then I think that it is very important that we are listening not only to those that you have consulted, but to those on the front line of the local authorities who are actually going to have to deliver this, because I think that there are differences of opinion within local authorities as to how we should actually move to try to narrow the gap. As Mary Scanlon rightly pointed out, different schools obviously have very different approaches. I have two comments in my summing up, convener. Firstly, I think it is very unfortunate that we are being asked to propose amendments at a time where we do not have the detail. My second comment is that we have to be very careful indeed that we are not creating a very extensive reporting bureaucracy out there, which I think could actually detract from what it is that we all want to achieve. Thank you very much, Liz. Can I call Chick Brody? Thank you. Good morning. I wish to speak against Mary Scanlon's amendment to A1-6B, 1-7A, 1-7B, 1-7C, 1-7D and also Mark Griffin's amendment to 1-6-2, 1-6-3. We have, again, an obsession with targets, convener, and I congratulate the cabinet secretary and our team in terms of talking about inequalities out of outcomes. Targets are only right at one particular time when we set them against unknown circumstances. What is important and important for the individual child is improving the outcome. Is there a quite clear, after assessment, quite clear improvement in the outcome of the group as a whole, but, importantly, those at the bottom of the pile just now, so that we do close that gap? I really wish that we would get away from the obsession with targets, which, as I said, are only right at one moment in time. What happens is that people start working towards the targets and forget what they are trying to do in terms of improving the outcome of the overall establishment. On that basis, I will strongly oppose the proposed amendments that embrace the demand for targets. I was reminded of when Mary Scanlon was speaking of an old colleague of mine, Jim Mitchell, in Renfrewshire Council, who, when he was winning in argument cross-party support, he just went out his way to make sure that he lost it in the next 10 or 15 minutes. But, oh no, you are not quite as bad, we are still with you in that one amendment. This old chamber has obviously had on-going debates like that as a council chamber, where we have talked about educational attainment and you can almost feel it in the building itself, the fact that they have constantly had these debates about narrowing the gap, closing the attainment gap. I think that the national improvement framework creates the opportunity to get the correct resource to the right place, ensuring that we target the right resource to the right area, to the right school, for the right child at the right time. This information can create that. I believe that already we have 30 to 32 local authorities already using a form of assessment, but having the national improvement framework being there as a way to push this one forward is a good foundation. Some of the supportive quotes that we have already had while we have been taking evidence has come from me and Ellis, the chair of the National Parent Forum of Scotland, where he said to education, the problem is most parents don't see the data, so we don't know how good it is. To me, that is a good thing about the new framework, we need to start sharing the data properly and having meaningful discussions with parents, and I think that's an important part of all this as well, is to ensure that parents are involved in this right from the start as well. And one of the other things, I know Keir Bloomer was mentioned by, I think it was, by Liam earlier on, and he's the deputy convener of the Royal Society, Edinburgh Education Committee, and he said, where I do think that Nicola Sturgeon is certainly correct, is that we do not have the information that we need to allow us to diagnose the problem and improve the system as a whole. Testing, we're talking about assessment here, doesn't of itself improve anything, but it gives you the evidence on which future improvement can be based, and I think that that last line is the most important part about the national improvement framework, it's about getting the right resource in the right place to right child at the right time, and I think that's to be commended of the government and it shows us a way forward so that we can narrow the gap in the hope to eventually close the attainment gap, and hopefully chambers like this will not have to have ongoing debates like this in the future. Thank you much, George. Any other members to contribute?  The first is an amendment 104A. Obviously, this committee has done a great deal of work on looked after children, disadvantaged children over the last four and a half years, including some substantial inquiries that the committee has undertaken. Given that the government is opposed to Mark Griffin's amendment 104A, I'd like you to give us some more detail about why you think the bill, as it stands, or with your own amendments should they pass, will cover this area and will not leave a gap, particularly a gap, as Marcus outlined with looked after and disadvantaged children. If you could give me some more detail on that, I would appreciate that. My second point is on amendment 104A, and it is roughly the same sort of questions. The issue of inequalities of access and participation that is covered in the amendment that was brought forward by Mary Scanlon are important issues. There are issues that have been raised, I'm sure, with other members, by the child poverty action group, and it would be helpful again if you could make sure that you cover the reasons why the government doesn't support, in particular, the amendment 104E, so we're aware of why that is, and how we can make sure that there is no inequalities of access and participation for children and pupils across the country, particularly in relation to technology changes in schools and access to trips and other things, which are obviously of great educational value. My third question is something that you raised yourself in your opening statement. You talked about crude league tables. We all agree that we don't want to see crude league tables published, but I would like again some more detail, if at all possible, about how the Government intends to avoid the publication of crude league tables by others to take information and misuse it to effectively create such league tables. With that, can I call the cabinet secretary to wind up on amendment 104? Thank you very much, convener. I did, of course, give a very lengthy statement at the beginning and thank committee for its forbearance. I'm going to try very hard not to repeat that very lengthy statement, but obviously it's there for members to reflect upon after committee and certainly prior to our stage 3 considerations. Mary Scanlon, in essence, asked, how can we legislate without seeing the national improvement framework? I want to reiterate to committee that there is widespread agreement that we need a national improvement framework and there is a broad consensus around the six areas that will drive improvement. With that regard, I take exception to the implication that there is no support for a national improvement framework or that we are indeed focusing on the right areas. It would not be appropriate, convener, to commit the detail of the framework to the face of the bill. That's because we don't want to limit our ability to review and to update the framework in light of the emerging evidence that we'll gather about what works. In our plans to review the framework, we have annual reporting action plans. We will always continue to work closely with that range of stakeholders, whether it's teachers, parents, children and young people. Of course, the national improvement framework is subject to statutory guidance. That statutory guidance will be subject to statutory consultation if committee accepts Mary Scanlon's amendment 159, which I certainly hope that it does. It's important to recognise that we want to close the attainment gap to be at the heart of this Government and any Government's agenda for the long run. We've worked hard to develop a system and a framework that will evolve and that will ultimately meet the needs of children within the classroom. We want to retain some flexibility, first and foremost, to respond to the needs of children. It's also important to remember that next week, the OECD reports on broad general education will be published. It is important that we all have an opportunity to reflect on that before the final national improvement framework. It's never final because it evolves every year, but before we publish the most up-to-date version in January, the Parliament has considerations at stage 3. We are confident that we don't need to legislate for assessment. We don't think that it's appropriate to legislate for assessment or, indeed, legislate for there not to be standardised assessment. We have set an expectation around the use of standardised assessment. Local authorities are required to engage with the framework. Of course, standardised assessment is one part of that. Standardised assessment convener will give teachers and education authorities what they need. We will bear the cost of that development and delivery, which has been universally welcomed. This is about streamlining what is already done and ensuring that there is consistent information available so that, at a local and national level, that information can be gathered and appropriate choices and decisions can be made as a result of that information. On that specific point. You have referred on a number of occasions to an assessment process. As I said in my remarks, there is universal agreement that that assessment process is absolutely part and parcel of high-quality teaching and delivering teaching that is appropriate to the child at any given time. What you haven't referred to is the process of testing. I think it was Ian Gray at the previous session when we went over this who asked whether or not what was being proposed was likely to be a single diet, and therefore what you have is a position and a point in time of where any given child is in any part of the country. Is that something that is being proposed, whether you call it assessment or testing? Is it something that is going to be taking place at largely the same time in schools right across the country for the pupils that would be eligible? With respect, Mr MacArthur, I did explicitly refer to that matter in my opening statement, but I do appreciate that it was a lengthy opening statement, so let me just, with committee's forbearance, repeat an aspect of that. In terms of standardised assessment, we can and will develop an assessment that gives us the information that we need, but without specifying a narrow window. That is so that our children will benefit from an assessment that informs and elicits actions and improvement throughout the school year, so I hope that that is clear, convener. It is also maybe worth me reiterating what I have said about the publication of assessment data that we will publish teacher judgment data on curriculum for excellence levels in literacy and numeracy, which is informed by standardised assessment. In terms of your point, convener, by not operating a narrow assessment window, that does limit the comparability of standardised assessment data, therefore removing many of the concerns that were previously raised around the publication of information. In terms of Liz Smith's point, it is with regard to Craig Monroe, who is the director of education at Fife. He clearly stated to committee that his view was that standardised assessment would not add to teacher workload, that this was very much about assessing in a better way and having more reliable, consistent information. Our view is that the new Scottish standardised assessment should streamline and replace the standardised assessments that are currently purchased by education authorities across the country. As I indicated earlier, the cost of the implementation of this would be borne by the Scottish Government. I turn, convener, to the substantive comments and contribution made by Mark Griffin. This morning, he spoke very eloquently about the needs of our looked-after children. I am not unsympathetic to what he is aspiring to achieve, but it has to be stressed that the additional support for needs legislation captures the needs of looked-after children. Obviously, the committee may be aware that the looked-after child strategy was published in the past week to 10 days. I remain open minded about using the enabling powers in the bill to extend the duties to other groups of children in the future, but it is something that I know that we all have a shared commitment to convener. I am certainly always open to further discussion on this matter, should Mr Griffin or any other member of the committee wish to pursue it further. On Mrs Scanlon's point again, which was reiterated by the convener on the participation issue, I believe that the duty as drafted means that ministers and local authorities have to have regard to access, so that it strengthens the current position. That would be our view with regard to that. On the issue of setting targets for the reduction in inequalities of outcome, our ambition is to close the attainment gap, not just to half it or whatever. Members make important points that we will need markers and milestones. Having an annual review process and action plans, where we are constantly reviewing what we are doing and the effectiveness of what we are doing, will be an important part of establishing, in due course, the appropriate markers or milestones. It is worth remembering that, just now, we do not have good reliable baseline information on broad general education, one of the reasons that we are in support of standardised assessment. Once the review process is implemented, once we have commenced and put into action the national improvement framework, we will be in a better position to introduce meaningful milestones or markers about how we intend to reach our ambitions. I stress that we are not interested in cruder, arbitrary or short-term targets. We do not want to have targets that can be narrowly focused or skew our view of what a good education looks like. Some of the proposals today in terms of targets do not sit well along a curriculum that is focusing on the needs of each and every child to achieve their potential, no matter where that potential lies. In essence, we are taking steps to establish a national improvement framework to provide robust, consistent information about attainment that allows parents, parliamentarians and communities to monitor children's progress with their learning and, indeed, to whole national and local government to account. Thank you very much. Before I call Mark Griffin, I welcome a third group of pupils from commercial primary school this morning.  I hope that you enjoy visiting the committee.  I appreciate what the cabinet secretary has to say. I do not doubt for a second her ambition or anyone else's ambition to close the attainment gap for this particular group of children and that is looked after children or children who are in care. However, given that this particular group represents such a gap in the attainment gap between this group of children and others, I struggle to see a situation where we would not want to recognise that this particular group of children are so badly affected that, when debating and discussing a bill that has a particular focus on reducing and closing entirely the attainment gap in Scotland, we would not want to give particular consideration to look after children, as I said in my opening remarks. Ultimately, the state is responsible for these children. It is a state that has responsibility to make sure that they have the best start in life and that they have the same opportunities as everyone else. I appreciate the cabinet secretary's comments that should be open to discussion to see where we could facilitate this. Like I said, I find it difficult to be in a position where I would not want to place an amendment on the face of this bill, which specifically looks at the needs of looked after children and children in care, and I would plan to press amendment 104A. The question is that amendment 104A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, therefore there will be a division. Can all those members who wish to support amendment 104A please vote now? Thank you. All those opposed. The result of the division on amendment 104A, there were three votes in favour and six votes against. Amendment 104A falls. Can I call amendment 104B, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, already debated with amendment 104, John Pentland, to move or not move? I have not heard that the cabinet secretary said that. I will withdraw at the moment. No, you just have to move or not move. Not move. Can I call amendment 104C, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, already debated with amendment 104, John Pentland, to move or not move? Not move. That is not moved. Can I call amendment 104D, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 104, Mark Griffin, to move or not move? Yes, move. That is moved. The question therefore is that amendment 104D be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, therefore there will be a division. Will all those who wish to support amendment 104D please vote now? Thank you. All those opposed. The result of the division on amendment 104D, there were three votes in favour and six votes against, therefore amendment 104D falls. Can I call amendment 104E, in the name of Mary Scanlon, already debated with amendment 104 Mary Scanlon, to move or not move? Move. That is moved. The question is therefore that amendment 104E be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, therefore there will be a division. Will all those members wish to support amendment 104E please vote now? Thank you. All those against. The result of the division on amendment 104E, there were four votes in favour and five votes against, therefore amendment 104E falls. Can I call amendment 104F, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, already debated with amendment 104, John Pentland, to move or not move? Not move. Not moved. Can I call amendment 104G, in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 104, Mark Griffin, to move or not move? Move. That is moved. Therefore the question is that amendment 104G be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, therefore there will be a division. Will all those who wish to support amendment 104G please vote now? Thank you. All those against. Abstentions? Thank you. The result of the division on amendment 104G, there were eight votes in favour, no votes against and one abstention, therefore amendment 104G is agreed to. Cabinet Secretary to confirm that she is pressing amendment 104 as amended? Confirmed. Thank you. The question is therefore that amendment 104 as amended be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 105, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 104, cabinet secretary, to move formally? Move to. The question is that amendment 105 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. Can I call amendment 106, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 104, cabinet secretary, to move formally? Moved. Can I call amendment 106A, in the name of Liam McArthur, already debated with amendment 104, Liam McArthur, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 106A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, therefore there will be a division. Would those who wish to support amendment 106A please vote now? Thank you. Those against? The result of the division on amendment 106A was one vote in favour and eight votes against, therefore that amendment is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 106B in the name of Mary Scanlon, already debated with amendment 104, Mary Scanlon, to move or not move? I'm so persuaded by Chick Brody's comments, I'll not move. You don't have to give us a reason, but okay, not moved. A cabinet secretary to confirm that you're pressing amendment 106A? Yes, confirmed. The question is that amendment 106A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, yes. It's not agreed, therefore there will be a division. Would all those who wish to support amendment 106A please vote now? Those against? Abstentions. Thank you. The result of the division on amendment 106A was seven votes in favour, no votes against and two abstentions, therefore amendment 106A is agreed to. Can I call amendment 107B in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 104? Can I call amendment 107A in the name of Mary Scanlon, already debated with amendment 104, Mary Scanlon, to move or not move? Not moved. That's not moved. Can I call amendment 107B in the name of Mary Scanlon, already debated with amendment 104, Mary Scanlon, to move or not move? Not moved. That's not moved. Can I call amendment 107C in the name of Mary Scanlon, already debated with amendment 104, Mary Scanlon, to move or not move? Not moved. Clif Rydym yn y gwirionedd o wenthyl Sh Deolch yn newid 111, byddai cyfnodig y Cymru, oedd gyntaf 121 deolch, Mae cyfnodig cyfnodig cyfnodig 111 i gyrtu, a ddych yn gynhyrchu cyfnodig y cyfnodig cyfnodig. Amendd 111 a 121 yw oedd y g?'i'r reddartydd am y gynhyrchu cyfoedd ynswag DSO 106 a 107. Amendd 107 sy'n ddedd i llywodraeth ac yn cyfnodig, oedd ond yn ganwch i chwylltio'rlinegar anарgen a��를 ychydig sydd yn y mae F машin—rraydd iawn i'r hyn yn drew!!!! The new arrangements replaced the previous 15th section of the T sustainability and performance for that minority wall schools and elite courts last week.'. Those sections required education authorities to prepare annual statements of education improvement objectives and described the activities to deliver the national priorities for education. We discussed the provisions being repealed by amendment 106 더� goals. However, the annual statements of education improvement objectives also included important details about the activity being undertaken by education authorities to promote equal opportunities to deliver Gallic Media Education to ensure parental involvement in education and to promote school health and nutrition. It is important that education authority efforts in these areas continue to be the subject of local scrutiny. So, new section 3A to be inserted into the 2000 act by amendment 107, which we have already debated, provides for this in relation to equal opportunities. Reporting on Gallic Media Education is required by the assessment process in part 2 of the bill and also in the context of Gallic language plans, which education authorities already prepare. It is therefore not being necessary to replicate the existing requirement at section 5 of the 2000 act to report on such matters. Amendments 111 and 112 will ensure continued reporting on school health and nutrition and parental involvement respectively. Amendment 111 requires the publication of a statement setting out planned activity as well as subsequent reports setting out progress. This is important in the context of our continuing commitment to provide children with access to healthy nutritious school meals under the schools at health promotion and nutrition Scotland Act 2007 and the 2008 related regulations or nutritional requirements for food and drink in schools and also our commitment to ensure that all of our children participate in health and wellbeing activity and receive the target of 2 hours per week. Amendment 112 requires that an education authority publishes its strategy for parental involvement and that they produce an annual report describing their efforts in implementing that strategy. We have sought to build in flexibility in relation to these reporting requirements and will encourage education authorities to satisfy these new duties through existing local processes where possible. Some may look towards their local education standards and quality report produced under section 7 of the 2000 act as an appropriate vehicle. Others may rely on children services plans to be produced under the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014 from August 2016. Ultimately, the right solution for each education authority will be the one that best meets the needs of the communities that they serve. A trust that committee accepts the significance of continued accountability in relation to these important aspects of education and is on that basis encouraged you to support the amendments that I have brought forward. I move amendments 111 and ask that members support both the amendments in this group. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Any other members wish to contribute? No, I presume you don't need to wind up, cabinet secretary. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 111 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 112 in the name of the cabinet secretary? Already debated with amendment 111, cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 112 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That's agreed. Can I call amendment 160 in the name of Mark Griffin? Already debated with amendment 104, Mark Griffin to move or not move. That's moved. The question is that amendment 160 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not all agreed, therefore there shall be a division. If we're all those members who wish to support amendment 160, please vote now. Thank you. All those against? Thank you. The result of the division on amendment 160, there were two votes in favour and seven votes against, therefore amendment 160 falls. Can I call amendment 161 in the name of Mark Griffin? Already debated with amendment 104, Mark Griffin to move or not move. That's moved. The question is that amendment 161 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not all agreed, there'll be a division, therefore, with those members who wish to support amendment 161, please vote now. Thank you. Those against? Thank you. The result of the division on amendment 161, there were three votes in favour and six votes against, therefore amendment 161 falls. Can I call amendment 162 in the name of Mark Griffin? Already debated with amendment 104, Mark Griffin to move or not move. That's moved. The question is that amendment 162 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not all agreed, therefore, there'll be a division, with all those members who wish to support amendment 162, please vote now. Thank you. All those against? Thank you. The result of the division on amendment 162, there were three votes in favour and six votes against, therefore amendment 162 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 163 in the name of Mark Griffin? Already debated with amendment 104, Mark Griffin to move or not move. The question is that amendment 163 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not all agreed, therefore, there'll be a division. Could all those members who wish to support amendment 163, please vote now? Thank you. All those against? Thank you. The result of the division on amendment 163, there were three votes in favour and six votes against, therefore amendment 163 is not agreed to. Can I call amendment 113 in the name of the cabinet secretary? In a group on its own, cabinet secretary, to move and speak to the amendment. Thank you. The purpose of amendment 113 is to ensure all children in receipt of funded early learning and childcare at partner providers have access to early learning and childcare if they are unable to attend their normal provider due to ill health or exceptional circumstances. This already exists for children at local authority settings. This amendment allows and in some cases requires local authorities to make suitable alternative arrangements to ensure children at partner providers continue to receive early learning and childcare in these circumstances. This amendment also has the effect of ensuring that the education authorities powers under section 5311 of the 1980 act inserted by section 18 of the bill to provide or secure a free school lunch to a child where they are unable or too ill to attend their normal educational establishment also applies who the child receives early learning and childcare at partner providers. I move amendment 113. Thank you. Any other members who wish to contribute to this debate? No other members? I presume that we do not need to add anything, cabinet secretary. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 113 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. At this point I am going to take a short suspension of around 15 minutes. Therefore, we will suspend the committee. Convener, all children and young people are entitled to the high quality learning and teaching which enables them to achieve their full potential. In recent years a number of local authorities have brought forward budget proposals in relation to reducing the school week. All of those proposals were subsequently dropped in the face of significant parental opposition. Already this year we have seen renewed proposals from Highland to reduce the primary school week by two and a half hours in 2016-17. I do not believe that parents should have to fight for their children's education in this way. No matter where in Scotland a child lives, he or she should be entitled to receive a consistent education offer. Education cannot be sacrificed in the name of savings and we must all recognise the shortsightedness of such an approach. In bringing this amendment forward, I want to respond to some of the comments made by Cosland others. Let me be clear, this is a considered response to a real issue. Teachers and parents have been asking us to make this change for many months now and Cosland knew that it was under consideration. This amendment is not based on anecdote or hearsay. As I have already said, there have already been a number of proposals by councils to reduce school hours and those are just the proposals that we know about. In response to the concerns of parents and teachers across the country and to introduce effective protection of school hours, amendment 164 seeks to place a duty on education authorities and the managers of grant AD schools to make available to pupils a minimum number of learning hours annually. Amendment 173 amends the long title of the bill to reflect the provisions that I am proposing about the delivery of a minimum number of hours of school education. I agree, convener, with the national parent forum of Scotland that any national entitlement should only be secured following full consultation. I am conscious that this is a complex matter, which cannot adequately be addressed by establishing a blunt and inflexible duty on the face of the bill. What children in primary school require in terms of teacher contact is unlikely to mirror the needs of pupils attending secondary school, and while we know that recent cost-saving proposals have focused on primary education, that does not necessarily mean that secondary school pupils are not equally entitled to a guarantee in relation to their learning. As I say, those are complex issues that are worthy of debate, but that debate cannot be about savings education. It is simply too important for that. Amendment 164 therefore provides an enabling power for Scottish ministers to prescribe the minimum number of learning hours and the type of school education that constitutes learning hours. Our starting point is that primary school pupils' current education provision must not be diminished. That provision currently, on a non-statuary basis, equates to 950 hours of teacher contact time over the course of a school year. That reflects the level of contact time that was envisaged when curriculum for excellence was being developed. Prescribing learning hours in regulations, however, enables us to carry out full and formal consultation with stakeholders in advance of exercising the enabling power. We have also recognised the need to accommodate those situations, which depart from the norm. There will be children whose medical conditions restrict the amount of time that they can reasonably spend in school, children who live far away from their school and whose travel time lengthens their day to the extent that, in the younger stages in particular, it is inappropriate for them to spend as long at school as others. Our amendment provides flexibility by enabling education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools to make exceptions where they are satisfied that it would not be in the individual pupils' interests to undertake the prescribed number of learning hours in a year. Education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools will also retain the power to determine their school day and school week within the overall requirement to provide the prescribed number of learning hours. There is no intention to prescribe the way in which learning hours should be divided over the school year. Our amendment will not interfere with the right of authorities to continue to operate an asymmetric week if they so wish. In contrast, amendment 165, lodged by Mr Griffin, affords no such flexibility by prescribing the number of hours to be provided each week. The amendment strips education authorities of their power to set the school day or to vary weeks across the term. By placing the details of the duty on the face of the bill, amendment 165 precludes any opportunity for consultation. I have been clear that I want to protect current local authority provision of 25 hours of teacher contact time with our registered teacher, but by prescribing the minimum number of hours and the nature of those hours and regulations, our amendment affords us the opportunity to consult with stakeholders to ensure that we have recognised and adequately addressed all the potential complexities of the issue. Unlike amendment 165, our provisions will reflect the fact that the post-curriculum for excellence world teaching and learning won't always take place in classes. I have touched already on the need for any minimum hours' duty to recognise different needs of particular groups of children, such as those for whom travel creates an already lengthy day. Any school hours legislation needs to be able to accommodate different arrangements and different circumstances, and my amendment in this group provides that flexibility. I am afraid that amendment 165 does not. I recognise the challenges and constraints facing Government, both national and local, as a result of the current financial situation. I accept that tough decisions have to be made, but surely such decisions should not be the expense of our children and our young people's education. This is not about placing new and unreasonable burdens on local authorities, it is about protecting primary school pupils from reductions to their school week, reductions that have been proposed purely on grounds of budget savings without regard to our commitment to raising attainment for all and reducing inequalities of outcome. No one can argue that less teaching time is the route to improving attainment, and I for one am not prepared to stand by and watch as education authorities make savings and then to find out whether it is to the detriment of their pupils. I recognise that Labour seeks similar ends through their amendment, and I very much welcome their support for our policy position, but I do believe that my amendment will better achieve the aims that we seek, and I ask the committee to support my amendments, and I ask Mr Griffin not to move his. I move amendment 164 Mark Griffin to speak to amendment 165 and other amendments in the group. We believe that this bill should contain a guarantee to parents that, in primary school, pupils will receive at least 25 hours of teaching time every week. We feel that parents sending their children to primary school should be confident that they will get at least 25 hours of teaching time each week. That should be secured in the light of recent proposals by councils across the country to reduce the school week. It is clear from the cabinet secretary's amendment in her comments that we share this policy position. We have just gone down different routes to achieve it. The recent report by Reform Scotland highlighted that the amount of teaching time pupil gets can vary by up to 149 hours depending on where the school is, which can have an impact on child learning. Current legislation says that pupils should get 190 days of teaching a year, but a day is not defined. Our amendment seeks to remedy this. There is policy agreement with the Government on this, and I would like to seek some assurances from the Government on areas of difference between our amendment and the cabinet secretary's. First, we would like to see this in legislation rather than leaving this to regulation with the greatest will in the world. There may come a point in time where there is a Government who may not support this, and we would seek the additional security of primary legislation for this policy. Secondly, the Government is still to define what learning hours mean in practice, and we are clear in our amendment that this is teaching time with our registered teacher, but this is left to regulation rather than on the face of the bill. It would be helpful for us if the cabinet secretary was able to address those two concerns in our closing. Thank you very much, Mark. Other members, please indicate if they wish to contribute to this debate. Can I begin by calling Liam McArthur? The amendments in this grouping, I think, make me so angry. Leaving aside the substance of all three amendments that have been lodged and indeed any potential merit they may have, the decision to lodge this sort of substantive amendment out of the blue and without any prior warning, I just think, shows utter contempt for this committee. We've already been put in the position of having to take evidence at stage two to deal with the cart before the horse approach the Government has taken with this bill, but these amendments suggest the minister is now in the realms of making up as she goes along. If it was really an issue, she was giving serious consideration to a problem or a risk that has long been established, then why on earth was the committee not informed either back in the summer or when the cabinet secretary appeared before us to give evidence at stage two in relation to the national improvement framework and the standard for headship? Yes, Mark Griffin has lodged a very similar amendment, but he's an opposition member. At best he can hope to probe the Government, but presumably he can also be invited to reflect on why he did not seek to raise this at stage one and gather evidence to back up his call. By contrast, when the minister lodges an amendment, given the way this Government has railroaded through its agenda through this Parliament over the last four years, notwithstanding the mine historic triumph that Mary succeeded with earlier on this morning, it is fairly safe to assume that this provision will find itself on the statute books sooner rather later. Even so, I would urge SNP colleagues to think seriously about whether or not to support their minister on this occasion. None of them sought to raise this issue at stage one either. They know as well as I do that we have taken absolutely no evidence on what the policy cost and other implications of this change might be. COSLA has highlighted their concerns about the lack of consultation on these proposals, the lack of respect it shows for the role of local councils in delivering education in our schools, and the lack of any international evidence to show that the approach proposed by the Government delivers improved outcomes in terms of education. They flag up to the effect of introducing yet more inflexibility into the system on top of what we heard last week in relation to the deal imposed in relation to teacher numbers. These do not seem unreasonable points to make, but ultimately all three amendments in this group should be rejected on the basis that the arguments for supporting them have not been tested and can therefore only be treated as either assertion or supposition. Convener local authorities in Scotland deserve better. Frankly so too does this committee. Being treated in this way by the minister who seems more anxious to avoid being outflanked and to be replaced in the affections of the EIS by Labour colleagues is not acceptable to me nor I would suggest should it be acceptable to others on this committee regardless of their political persuasion and I would encourage everybody to reject these amendments. Thank you very much Liam.  Thank you convener. Well Liam MacArthur may be angry this morning but can I just tell Liam MacArthur that he's not half as angry as Highland Council because they were absolutely shocked. I've had more correspondence from Highland Council since last Wednesday I think than I've had at least in the past one two or three years and it's an MSP coming into this Parliament in 1999 convener. I've had plenty differences with Highland Council. I've had plenty complaints about Highland Council, planning and housing and various things. I have never ever from any parent or any pupil, any community council or any organisation had a complaint about the quality of teaching in Highland Council schools. Never and I think it's worth putting that on the record. So I'd be failing in my duty convener if I did not put forward the very strong objections to these amendments by Highland Council members. My first objections come from Councillor Margaret Davidson, leader of the independent group, Councillor Alastair Christie, leader of the Liberal Democrat group, Councillor Jimmy Gray, leader of the Labour group and Councillor Drew Miller who is the chairman of the education committee, a very highly respected councillor from Sky and the leader of the Highland Alliance group. And it's worth putting on the record and I quote, the Highland Council has taken pride in its long standing close and constructive relationship with the Scottish Government regarding education and children services. We were therefore somewhat surprised by the announcement this week without any notice or consultation of a proposal to legislate for a 25-hour teaching week in all Scottish primary schools regardless of local circumstances. If this was to become legislation we believe it could have major and severe implications for Highland children, families and communities and therefore we have taken the unusual step, and it is unusual believe me, of political group leaders in the authority to write this joint letter to you. Most Highland primary schools have always operated a 22.5 hour week in primaries 1 to 3 classes. This involves 272 schools from the north of Scotland to Baddinoch and Straths Bay, mostly because of the length of the day for young children who may have to travel considerable distances. The Highlands are not the central belt. Young children who travel to school for a 25-hour week could be away from home for more than 35 hours and travelling more frequently back and forward in the dark. The cabinet secretary has said that this proposal is being introduced to raise attainment. We are committed and I can confirm that, to raising attainment for all Highland children, including those who live in less advantaged areas, but there is no evidence of a connection between the length of the school week and educational attainment. Most European countries operate with a lower number of teaching hours per year than in Scotland, with children starting school at the age of six. Finland, Germany and Denmark, for example, all offer fewer hours in Scotland, but their pupils either match or far outperform Scotland's pupils in the internationally collated PISA measures for literacy and numeracy. It has been asserted by government that it cannot be argued that cutting the number of hours will improve education. Indeed, what a more detailed analysis shows is that the number of hours a pupil spends in class is far less important than the quality of the educational experience that they receive. The Government has claimed that the curriculum for excellence is based on a 25-hour school week. However, curriculum for excellence is designed to be the totality of children's experiences both in and out of school, recognising that children learn in a variety of contexts. A number of councils already operate successfully a 22.5-hour school week for younger pupils. My next point comes from Drew Miller directly from the chair of Education, Children and Adult Services Committee. I will not repeat anything that has been already said, but he does say that the proposed imposition of a 25-hour week on schools and authorities does not take account of local needs. For example, much education is supported by tutors, instructors and assistants who are not registered teachers. According to Councillor Miller again, there is no evidence to support a connection between the length of the school week and educational attainment. Many MSPs will be familiar with Bill Alexander, often quoted in this Parliament. He is the director of care and learning and he goes on to say that there is no correlation between a 25-hour primary school week and high attainment levels. The critical issues are the quality of learning and teaching and the infrastructure and support arrangements. This proposed amendment would create enormous doubt about the sustainability of education in many of our communities. It is a step too far when we are already facing enormous resource challenges, he added. It would mean providing more than 1,000 extra teaching hours and recruiting more than 30 additional teachers at a time when it is difficult to recruit to existing vacancies. This number of available teachers simply does not exist. Importantly, convener, the budget leader, Councillor Bill Fernie from Caithness, an extra half an hour in class every day would cost Highland Council at least £2 million. That is at a time when they are looking at cutting £4 million. They would not be allowed to cut. That whole thing would cost £6 million. There would be significant additional costs at a time when our budget is being substantially reduced with further grant cuts and continuation of the council tax freeze. That would be yet another central imposition that would constrain how the local authority can manage its resources. Unless this policy was centrally funded by the Scottish Government, it could mean cuts elsewhere in education and children services. Because it has come in late, there is no financial memorandum, there is no costing, there has been very little, if any, thought given to this at all. Councillor Fernie goes on to say that the new legislation will only increase the pressure and will mean that some schools become less viable, which could force the authority to consult with parents about the possibility of mothballing. I would go further and say possibility of mergers and closing, but those are my words, not Councillor Fernie. He mentions mothballing. Councillor Fernie finishes by saying that it would reduce our capacity to achieve around £4 million of efficiencies. Highland Council has been working on this for months, meaning a total impact on the education budget of £6 million. Councillor Drew Miller concluded that this latest Government announcement would be catastrophic for Highland Council, as we are already struggling to balance our budget in these extremely challenging financial times. This is a council with a very good and constructive relationship with the Scottish Government, and that is why I am shocked to read those words, but it is my duty to pass them on. He ends by saying, I am astonished and dismayed at this further interference and imposition by central government on local authorities' remit and their ability to deliver education in Scotland. Furthermore, I am disappointed that there has been no consultation about this matter, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will now agree to take account of our views. I have a further briefing from the former political children's champion, a councillor for north-west Sutherland, the largest council ward in Scotland, councillor Lindham and Row, and Lindham and Row from Betty Hill. It echoes most of what is being said, so I do not think I will go on to repeat that. From Shetland, Gary Robinson, who was in front of this committee last week, wrote, with teacher numbers, class sizes, free school meals, additional nursery provision, presumption against school closures and a 19 per cent real reduction in our funding, this latest announcement only serves to show how out of touch the cabinet secretary is. COSLA were never consulted on this issue. I spoke to Alan Wright, the convener of Murray council, at the weekend. Alan Wright has asked whether that has been costed, and he would also like to put on the record that, in Murray primaries, one to three operate a twenty-two and a half hour week, and he would like to convey his support for the points made by Highland council. Finally, convener, I come to COSLA. Again, I have about seven pages, but some of it I have already mentioned in the Highlands Ones. However, I do think that they raise actual questions, convener, if I may say that. Since the announcement was made, cabinet secretary has said publicly that this issue has been raised for months with her. If this is true and it is a genuine and long-standing concern of government, as Liam McArthur said, why wasn't it part of the original bill or communicated to Parliament with other likely amendments after the summer recess and only came to us last week? Why, after a year of discussions on the bill with the civil service, did the subject of ministers being minded to legislate the length of the school week never arise? Why, when COSLA met the cabinet secretary and other ministers on 12 November to discuss the national improvement framework and the education bill, did the Government not mention that they were considering this proposal? Why is the Government waited to the last minute to submit an amendment of such consequences? Yes, I think that this is a very important issue. Can the Government state the source of educational evidence that it used to make this decision? If teachers and parents have been championing it for months, they certainly weren't living in the Highlands, and I've never heard of it, I've never heard a parliamentary question about it, I've never been spoken about. Why, given the fact that some councils already operate 22.5 hour weeks successful in schools, why hasn't this been taken into account by Government? How will the bill apply to primary special schools or to children with additional support needs in mainstream education? What are the educational reasons that's driven the Scottish Government to seek this power? Why wasn't it discussed with local government before it was announced and you'll be pleased to know it's a final question, but I think it's a very, very important one, convener. What financial impact assessment has the Scottish Government carried out on the proposal for a statutory school week? Six million is costing in Highland, I'd love to know what it'll cost elsewhere, and does the Government realise that simply stating that it's protecting education from austerity is unfair and masks the complex and difficult financial challenges faced by local authorities? I apologise for taking so long, convener, but I can put on the record that I have never, in any piece of legislation that I've scrutinised, received so many comments from the area that I represent and I'd be failing in my duty to Highland Council where I not to bring forward the very serious concerns that they have today. Thank you very much, Mary. I am, can I call Chick Brody? I don't think anyone could accuse Mary Scanlon of not robustly defending the views of her area. I'm somewhat confused because the CFE operates on an assumption of 25 hours of teacher contact with each week in primary schools. That has been reflected in some comments by the likes of the general secretary of EIS who warmly welcomed the Scottish Government's announcement that it will legislate—I'll come back to that—the length of the primary school week to ensure that it will remain at 25 hours. Remember what I said, CFE assumes 25 hours of contact. Of course, more importantly, with no reflection to the EIS, the national parents forum said that this is something that the forum has been asking for for well over a year. We are happy that this will now mean that our children will have a teacher with them for 25 hours a week. Again, listening to Mary Scanlon's robust approach to the potential impact that some representatives in her area say, when I look at what is proposed, we are talking about an education authority. The managers of graduated schools must secure that no fewer than the prescribed number of learning hours then go on to say that an education authority is responsible. We then have the CFE strong assumption of 25 hours a week. While I understand some of it, I think that Liam McArthur's view was unnecessarily aggressive in terms of railroading things like this through. We need to look at the wording that is proposed, look at the assumption of the CFE and take it in that context in notwithstanding some of the misplaced assertions that the bill is proposing. I would like those to be taken into account and the comments of the national parents forum. I associate myself with the comments of Mr McArthur and Mary Scanlon. I think that there are two issues, cabinet secretary. The first is that, irrespective of whether people agree or disagree with the amendments that have been brought forward, there has undoubtedly been a lack of consultation. That is not just coming from Highland Council, that is coming from many councils and it is not just within the COSLA representation. I have undertaken over the course of the past five days between Wednesday when this first came public until today to consult not just a haste to add with conservators but with other members in the council and there is clearly a very considerable concern about the way in which that has been brought forward and it is simply unacceptable given that the local authorities are the ones on the ground who would have to deliver this. I think that it is fair to say that, while obviously they have financial concerns, they also have very significant educational concerns. The second issue, cabinet secretary, is that, as yet, there is no evidence whatsoever that the length of time in the classroom delivers better outcomes. There is no qualitative data that I can see that the cabinet secretary is bringing forward to press the case that by extending the minimum requirement in hours as opposed to days that it will necessarily deliver better quality education. Mary Scanlon quoted evidence from Highland Council, where it pointed to European research, so it could actually argue the opposite. Therefore, if the cabinet secretary is considering making such a substantial change, you would expect to have very convincing evidence that would prove that there is an educational value to the amendments that she is proposing. However, as yet, we do not have that and therefore I would be very supportive of what Mr MacArthur and Mrs Scanlon have said. Are there any other members who wish to contribute to the debate? Before I come to the cabinet secretary, can I just raise one or two points? I think that I would be failing my duty as convener if I did not point out, cabinet secretary, that members are correct in pointing out that the lack of consultation is not the first time that this has happened on this bill and on other bills. Therefore, I would, with all due respect, expect you and you are coming up to explain the circumstances as to how we have got to the point where you have brought this forward amendment without consultation into this bill. It is a major change and I think it is reasonable members to raise that point. I have some questions, though, specifically on the amendment. I think that amendment 165 does lack flexibility and, while I understand and sympathise with the proposal that has been brought forward by Mark Griffin, I think that there is a lack of flexibility in the way that it is drafted and therefore I will not be supporting it. On amendment 164, cabinet secretary, could you maybe provide some detail? I know that it is going to be done through regulations, but what exactly is meant by learning hours? Are school trips included or not included in teaching time or learning time or learning hours? What happens with special schools? You mentioned earlier that schools could exempt individual pupils. Could they therefore exempt individual schools within an authority? Or could they exempt, for example—perhaps Barry Scanlon, who gave an example of a where there are 22.5 hours in the lower, the early stages of primary school, primary one, two, perhaps three—could that be exempted? If not, why not? With those questions, can I ask the cabinet secretary to wind up? I want to start by saying that we need to be absolutely clear here that decisions made about the amount of time that our children spend in class with a teacher have to be made on educational benefit and not on the basis of saving money. No council who has brought forward proposals to reduce the school week have done so on the basis of educational benefit. The proposals have been based in and around the need to make financial savings. What the Government is striving to do is to protect what we already have. It is crucial to remember that Highland Council has only formally, in the past two weeks, came forward with proposals to lead a formal consultation on the matter and to arrange other matters that affect it locally. That has been an issue that has been subject to oral parliamentary questions, I recall vividly. I have been questioned by Angus Macdonald, MSP, when Falkirk had such proposals on the book. Indeed, when Cabinet visited the Highlands earlier this year, one of the questions at the town hall event, the public meeting, I was certainly challenged in questions with regard to what was perceived as the threat to reduce the school week. That has indeed been a live issue. COSLA was aware of that, particularly given that Scottish Labour had signalled their intent to legislate during the stage one debate. Our decision to bring forward amendments follows representations from key partners, including the national parent phone for Scotland and the EIS. One of the reasons for placing the detail of the new duty in regulations was that it would enable us to consult widely with stakeholders before bringing forward the detail of those regulations. I am certainly well scrutinised here at stage 2 precedence, and Parliament will have other opportunities at stage 3. Notwithstanding about the financial criteria—I have some sympathy for that—could you tell the committee whether, in fact, there is educational evidence to support the fact that by extending the school hours, there will be better attainment? Councils are telling us on an educational basis that it could be the opposite. It is about the quality of delivery, not the quantity. Does the Scottish Government have evidence that, by making that change, you would, by definition, improve the quality of education? No one can seriously argue that reducing a child's access to a qualified registered teacher will improve attainment. No one in mainstream education can credibly argue that less time with a teacher is going to be a route to educational equity or, indeed, excellence. Members have already pointed out that curriculum for excellence in the primary school years is based on 25 hours a week or 27.5 hours in a secondary school. There are reams of evidence that access to high quality teaching is imperative for the quality of our children's education. As identified in the national improvement framework, a key area that drives improvement is why we have invested so much in things such as teaching Scotland's future in educational leadership. It is why we resisted all attempts to diminish the notion that teachers should be qualified and registered. Therefore, yes, it is about the evidence on access to quality professionals, but I have not heard anyone credibly argue that by reducing what we already have is going to improve attainment in our schools. Thank you very much. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention. I have listened carefully to the exchange between herself and Liz Smith. In a sense, it goes to the very heart of the problem we face here. In the space of the next five minutes, we are going to be invited to vote on these amendments. I am sitting here looking at figures suggesting that in Denmark, for example, primary school pupils in P1 get access to 600 hours annually in primary 2, 690 in primary 3, 713, compared to Scotland where it is 960. In Germany, the figures are P1, 564, P2, 592, and in P3, 705. I do not know what the answer to these questions are, but it is why that whether it be in stage 1 or at the very least at stage 2 when we have taken additional evidence in relation to the national improvement framework or the standard for headship, we would expect to be able to test the arguments that the cabinet secretary is making to justify our amendment, but which we have been denied because of the way in which the government is going about addressing a problem which they say was evident to them when they were up at Highland Council earlier on either this year or last year. The way in which the government is going about this is put this committee in an impossible position, and I have not yet heard an answer to the question that the convener proposed in relation to why that consultation, not just with other stakeholders, but in a way that allows this committee to do its job in holding the government to account on its proposals, has been denied us. The reality, as we have heard from other members, Mr MacArthur, is that our curriculum, curriculum for excellence, is based on 25 hours a week, and you cannot compare whole education systems with other whole education systems in a country based on one barometer, but our curriculum is based on 25 hours a week teacher contact time in primary school. We should perhaps ask ourselves whether there would have been such a strong reaction from COSLA and other local authorities if cutting the school week was not already under active consideration by some councils. I have not heard one argument that reducing the school week will improve our quest, a quest that we all share to improving attainment and closing the attainment gap in Scotland. The idea of Scottish ministers taking steps to deliver a legal guarantee for school pupils in this way, I have to say, is not a new one. We already require councils to be open for 190 days a year, and nobody seems to have any issue with that. We already require local authorities to provide 600 hours of early learning in childcare. The regulations prescribing the number and nature of learning hours will be the subject of widespread consultation, including with local government. Regulations will also be subject to affirmative procedure, so they will be fully scrutinised by this Parliament. As I said earlier in terms of COSLA, our expectation is that local councils and the vast majority are providing pupils with 25 hours of teacher time already. If I can point Mrs Scanlon back to my opening remarks, where I said that we have also recognised the need to accommodate those situations that should depart from the norm, there will be children whose medical conditions restrict the amount of time that they can reasonably spend in school, children who live far away from the school or whose travel time lengthens their day to the extent that, in the younger stages in particular, it is inappropriate for them to spend as long at school as others. That is why, in this way forward with enabling powers, I would recommend the flexibility of approach that allows the complexity of the detail to be considered in full and, indeed, allows for full consultation. I hope that that would address certainly some of Mr Griffin's concerns. I also want to say to Mr Griffin and to the convener in terms of the definition of learning hours. This is contact with a teacher, contact with a registered teacher. We already know that, to meet the 25 hours of curriculum for excellence, that requires the full-time equivalent of 1.1 teachers. We have to recognise that, in the secondary school years, the curriculum is based on 27.5 hours, but with developing the young workforce agenda, we are actively looking for learning opportunities outwith the class to give young people opportunities to pursue vocational qualifications. We want to define carefully learning hours, but, as a starting point and as a very basic learning hours, it is contact with a teacher. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. The question, therefore, is that amendment 164 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed, therefore there will be a division. Would those members wishing to support amendment 164 please vote now? Those against? Thank you. The result of the division on amendment 164, there were seven votes in favour and two votes against that amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 165 in the name of Mark Griffin, already debated with amendment 164. Mark Griffin, to move or not move? Not move. It's not moved. I call amendment 114 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with the other amendments shown on the groupings. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 114 and speak to all amendments in the group. Okay, thank you, convener. This is another big and important group of amendments, and I hope that the committee will bear with me again as I take a little time to introduce them. Providing young children in early learning and childcare with a healthy free school lunch helps to raise attainment, reduce inequality gaps and improve the health and well being of children at this crucial stage in their development. The purpose of amendment 114 is to make the provision of a free school lunch under section 53 of the Education Scotland Act 1980 and, as restated under part 3 of this bill, equally applicable to young children who receive their entitlement to early learning and childcare at partner providers. Currently, only young children who attend education authority establishments are eligible for free school lunches where they meet the relevant criteria. It is important to rectify this discrepancy in the legislation in regard to partner providers and the entitlement to a free school lunch. This will become increasingly relevant as more young children attend in the middle of day due to increased flexibility and may also attend more partner providers at this time. Amendment 115 enables an education authority to secure the provision of a free school lunch. Amendments 116 to 118, 120 and 123 are consequential to 115. Those amendments will mean that the education authority can pass funding and arrangements on to others such as partner providers for free school lunches and other food and drink, and they do not have to provide it directly themselves. Amendments 121 and 122 will ensure maximum flexibility for education authorities as to where lunches and food or drink for children at their own or partner provider settings can be provided. Amendment 119 will ensure that education authorities are not responsible for providing facilities for the consumption of food or drink brought to partner providers by children. That keeps the requirements on education authorities with respect to partner providers proportionate. Amendment 123 will ensure for consistency that responsibility for determining what is suitable for consumption in the middle of the day remains with local authorities. Amendment 125 makes minor technical amendments to sections 56A and 56E of the 1980 act in consequence of the new version of section 53. Those amendments are required to maintain the current position in relation to nutritional requirements and sustainable development. The Scottish Government provides free school lunch provision where it can within current budget constraints and we will take all opportunities to expand where we can. Amendments 124 and 168 create a regulation making power subject to the affirmative procedure to enable Scottish ministers to require local authorities to provide meals other than a lunch. For example, a more vulnerable two, three and four-year-olds could receive a breakfast or tea instead of a lunch if that better suited the time of their session. We have worked with stakeholders to make sure that amendments in my name relating to free school meals are proportionate and manageable for education authorities and their partner providers to implement. The stakeholders we have consulted with include COSLA, ADIS, the National Day Nurseries Association and the Scottish Child Minding Association. There is consensus around the benefits to being gained by children as a result of these changes to free school meal provision. To this effect, funding has already been agreed and allocated to education authorities in order to support voluntary implementation of the provision of free school lunches to eligible preschool children at partner providers from August 2015 pending parliamentary approval of these amendments. Amendments 166 and 167, lodged by Mary Scanlon, deal with free school meals for primary school children. Amendment 166 seeks to require education authorities to provide a free school lunch to all pupils in primary one to three. Amendment 167, I think, seems to negate amendment 166 by seeking to require education authorities to provide a school lunch to all pupils in primary education, and perhaps Mary Scanlon will clarify her intentions when she speaks to her own amendments. However, I do not think that it is necessary to amend the 1980 act in the way that Mary Scanlon's amendments propose for the following reasons. Firstly, in January this year, we extended free school lunches to all children in primary one to three. This can save families around £380 a year per child. I am proud of the action that we have taken in recent years to extend free school meal eligibility. Secondly, ministers already have a regulation making power in section 53 of the 1980 act, which allows them to extend the category of people receiving a free school lunch to other school years. Targeting our limited resources to provide for the younger school children gives them the opportunity to benefit from a nutritious meal at a crucial stage of their education and to develop healthy eating habits which can be sustained as they grow older. The latest statistics demonstrate that the extension of free school lunches to children in primary one to primary three is having a huge impact. Over 129,000 primary one to primary three pupils are now benefiting from a healthier, nutritious free school lunch, with almost 99,000 more primary school children taking a free school meal. The extension of free school lunches has been fully funded by this Government, with £70 million of revenue funding provided over 2014-15 and 15-16 to ensure that this policy can be delivered in partnership with local government. This has ensured that implementation has been achieved without having to call upon the powers that Scottish ministers have in the 1980 act to impose a duty on education to provide school lunches. Instead, the policy has been delivered by virtue of the new discretionary powers that local authorities have to provide free school lunches to children. This Government intends to fully fund the policy in the future subject to future spending reviews. Providing that our existing agreement with local authorities continues to ensure implementation of this important policy, there would be no need for ministers to exercise our regulation-making powers or for primary legislation proposed by Ms Scanlon. However, this Government is absolutely clear that if any local authority suggests reneging on this commitment, we will not hesitate to use our regulation-making powers to ensure that all local authorities provide free school meals for all children in primary one to three in their schools. I have met with the child poverty action group who have made clear in their cost of the school day report that continuing to provide free school meals to children in primary one to three is of utmost importance with the cost of school meals remaining a huge financial barrier for families in Scotland. That said, however, provision for primary one to three is what is affordable, given tight constraints set in budgets from Westminster, and we are not in a position nor are local authorities to fully fund the cost of free school meals to children beyond primary three. Of course, children who qualify for free school lunchease as a result of existing benefits-related criteria will continue to do so, and we will continue to focus our efforts on protecting entitlement to free school lunchease under the UK Government's welfare reforms. Moving on from free school meals to another issue that is a financial barrier to education school clothing, again, this is a matter that I have discussed recently with child poverty action group. The policy behind amendment 169, which I announced last week, will provide welcome support for families impacted by austerity, putting money back into the pockets of families who need it most and, importantly, will ensure that all children and young people have suitable clothing to enable them to learn and thrive at school. Crucially, this policy will also provide consistency of approach across Scotland, while local authorities currently have a general duty to make provision. It is clear from our discussions with a number of organisations that there is inconsistency across Scotland, and it is unacceptable that any child should lose out. Amendment 169 gives ministers the power through regulations to place local authorities under a duty to pay a grant of specified amount for the provision of clothing for certain pupils under certain conditions. We need to support the children and young people who need the help most, and it is both sensible and timely to put those powers in place now. The description of those pupils is still to be agreed, and I look forward to continuing those discussions with COSLA, and I also fully intend to work in partnership with them to agree a minimum level of grant provision throughout Scotland. Providing that agreement can be reached to ensure implementation, there would be no need to call upon those enabling powers in amendment 169. Amendment 169, future proofs, a legislativ