The next item of business is a debate on motion 17280, in the name of Tavish Scott on education. I connect those members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now and I call Tavish Scott to speak to and move the motion. Mr Scott, eight minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We debate education on the 20th anniversary of the Scottish Parliament after 12 years of SNP government and four years on from the First Minister's speech saying education policy is number one. Why do teachers, parents and young people see little evidence that education is this government's main reason for being in office? The perpetual siren of independence has not been switched off and now, because ironies of ironies school pupils went on strike, we're in the midst of a climate change crisis. If this government wants to demonstrate what happens in schools, college workshops and university lecture halls really is their main priority, then I suggest that the government starts that approach by leading an annual debate on Scottish education here in the nation's Parliament, the voice of the Scottish people. Parliament, after all, has listened to 23 education statements since 2016 but no substantial debate on where Scottish education is. The government has indeed opened a debate on mainstreaming and then on the growing of long grass or, as others best know it, educational governance. Instead, once a year, the education secretary should set out the government's educational approach, their future plans and, crucially, the funding to make it happen. I do not argue that only money matters in schools but, as all MSPs know, an ability to deliver for young people and for their future does depend on adequate resources in every classroom and lecture hall across Scotland. The government's school spending direction is clear. The introduction of the attainment fund circumvents local government making school spending decisions. In effect, the government is saying that we do not trust councils to tackle attainment, otherwise why have the attainment fund? Instead, there is direct funding from central government based on mechanisms that, as we know, do not reflect poverty and deprivation in many parts of Scotland. Far from there being a historic concordat with Scotland's councils, local government now believes that there is a we know best approach in Edinburgh. However, to know best is, of course, to have the evidence. The government wants to attack the educational attainment gap, to close it. That is indeed an admirable objective. What then was the evidence on literacy and numeracy, cited by the First Minister in her Westerhales education speech, to justify those new funding routes and, indeed, the reintroduction of Michael Versaith's school testing programme? The Scottish Survey of Literacy and Numeracy was cited at some length by the First Minister. What did the government then do? It abolished it. Many found that somewhat extraordinary. The government now concede that there will be a five-year data gap before comparable evidence on what is happening in Scottish education will be available. How that sits with saying that we want to close the gap that we cannot measure with data that we do not have is somewhat beyond me. Some cynics believe that having no comparable educational data until after the Scottish election suits the Government rather well, but I am no cynic. The Hollywood education committee on a cross-party basis recommends the reintroduction of an expanded Scottish survey of literacy and numeracy, and perhaps the Government will listen to that sensible suggestion. The jury is out on the attainment fund, out when 43,193 primary school pupils across Scotland are today taught in classes of 31 or more. That is 12,000 more children than in 2012. Ask any primary teacher about the reality of ever-larger class sizes. There used to be an SNP commitment to reduce primary school class sizes, and they were right about that. Absolutely right about that. It is unfortunate that this sensible approach has been abandoned. The jury is also out on the attainment fund when there are 1,000 fewer English and Master teachers since 2008 in Scotland schools, out when there are 400 less specialist ASN teachers now compared to four years ago, out when, for the first time I can ever remember, Shetland cannot recruit a primary school teacher. Every part of Scotland faces similar financial pressures. The Government's other main financial initiative is the pupil equity fund, but 40 per cent was underspent in the previous financial year. 1,000 teachers are on one-year contracts using the pupil equity fund, and there is no money for school curriculum specialists, for community and youth work staff and the administrative people who did their level best to reduce the bureaucracy that teachers still face. How is that approach forced on schools and councils by central government, a long-term sustained commitment to education, or indeed a partnership with all who have responsibility for improving standards and giving young people the best chance for their future? I will continue to argue for curriculum for excellence. It is the right approach, a long-term change in how Scotland schools operate, but where change is needed is in defining what parents and pupils expect from curriculum for excellence. On that, the Government in power for 12 years has not succeeded. Otherwise, why would the general secretary of Scotland's biggest teaching union tell Parliament that the senior face in our schools does not have the clarity of purpose? No wonder parents question why policy is to restrict the educational choice that their daughters and sons have. Why does East Renfrewshire, as the council explained this morning to Parliament, believe and deliver eight subject choices as in the best interests of their pupils, and yet this is not the case elsewhere? Parents wonder why their young people are being taught to different exams altogether, the increasingly prevalent practice of teaching hires and advanced hires in one classroom. Why are the numbers sitting higher in computer science in 2018, lower than the year before, when the economic needs of the country are so manifest in that area? Parents wonder why the numbers of young people taking music, art and a modern language all the way through school is falling. In a world where we are about to be plucked out of the EU, in a world where we need more of our young people to speak a foreign language, where negotiating overseas will affect more parts and industries of Scotland ever before, is it not right that modern language teaching goes forwards, not backwards? Most parents are none the wiser why their five-year-old boys and girls are being tested in primary one. Why? Because the Government has changed the tune on why they reintroduced school testing, having resolutely opposed testing before 2016. No parents were asked about P1 testing, indeed no one was asked about the testing regime whatsoever, it was just imposed by central Government. Working mums and dads know how important childcare from 8 am through to 6 pm is every day. The Government is rightly investing in early learning expansion, but it simply must go hand in hand with wraparound care. Otherwise, as one mum put it to me last week, she would rather keep the current hours at nursery school and the pre-imposed work childcare in the private sector than an expansion at school, which does not cover her working day. The policy needs to be joined up, private sector childcare is closing across Scotland, we need it to flourish, not collapse. All of those questions are why the OECD, much cited by the Government, called for a mid-term review of curriculum for excellence, not to rip it up or change curriculum for excellence for the sake of change, but to address what is working and what is not. A hard-nosed educational assessment of where Scottish education is, that approach has been endorsed by Parliament. I hope that the Government today will set out their plan as to make that sensible approach happen. It would be a welcome acceptance, too, of Parliament's view if the Government started implementing the view of this place when a democratic verdict had indeed been reached. The former United States President Woodrow Wilson once observed that, for a legislature, vigilant oversight is just as important as legislation. Despite the legislative sword of Damocles that still hangs over local councils, the Government is not going to take an education bill through this session. The oversight of Government policy, what ministers do and say, and crucially what they spend, is what this place is about. I ask Parliament today to approve of a Government that wants to make education its single most important purpose, but that must go hand in hand with the resources, the money in schools, colleges and universities to make that a reality. The Government's own facts do not support that position. I move the amendment to my name. Thank you very much, I call on John Swinney to speak to and move amendment 17280.2. Cabinet Secretary, six minutes please. Presiding Officer, let me begin by setting out the areas where I agree with Tavish Scott and I agree that education is the central purpose of this Government. It is upon which our policy programme is anchored in this parliamentary term with our determination to close the poverty related attainment gap. I agree with Tavish Scott on the importance of curriculum for excellence, and I welcome constructive discussion about how we enhance and ensure that curriculum for excellence is the right curricular choice. I recently attended the international summit of the teaching profession in Finland with the general secretary of the educational institute of Scotland, and both of us were struck by the admiration that was expressed internationally for the reforms that we had undertaken in Scotland long before I became the education secretary to implement curriculum for excellence as a curriculum that was relevant and valid for the needs of young people for the 21st century, and so it should be. I welcome the suggestion about an annual debate on education, and perhaps the Government may well do that to ensure that we have that opportunity to reflect on some of those broader trends in performance in education and in some of the challenges that we face. I suppose that where a part company is in some of the points raised by Mr Scott in relation to funding for education, we find across early learning, across school education, across college and further education provision and university funding, rising expenditure under this Government has been taken forward. We also see funding being targeted directly to individual schools through pupil equity funding, and I hear the criticisms that are being levelled by Mr Scott at pupil equity funding, but in my experience, and I saw a fantastic example of it this morning at Hermitage Park primary school in Edinburgh, pupil equity funding is unleashing a creativity and an innovation within our schools, which is enhancing the education of young people within Scotland. Mr Swinney must know that universities Scotland tell us that their funding is 11% less than it was just a few years ago. How can what he has just said possibly be true? Because there is rising resources going in and total into the university sector. I will now give way to Mr Mundell. I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. I hear what he says about pupil equity funding, but does he recognise that there is still a problem for small schools in my constituency, many of whom receive no PEF funding whatsoever? PEF funding reaches 95 per cent of schools in Scotland. I appreciate that there are challenges about the distribution mechanism. My officials are engaged with local authorities in trying to find another way of ensuring that we spread that funding support even further. I was very surprised that, in the motion that Mr Scott brought forward, which refers to issues on staff conditions, recruitment and retention, he made absolutely no reference whatsoever to the pay deal that we have negotiated with Scotland's teaching professional associates, not a single mention of it, which resulted in a 13 per cent increase for all teachers, as a minimum, over a three-year period. One of the challenges that we have faced in recruitment and retention of teachers has been about the fact that we have had to apply, and I had to apply as France Minister, public sector pay constraint. Why did we have to apply public sector pay constraint? We had to apply it because of the austerity that was created by the liberal and conservative Government after 2010. If we are going to have a complete debate about this, let's have a complete debate about this. One of the issues that we have been able to secure is progress on teacher numbers. We now have the highest number of teachers in our school classrooms since 2010. One of the issues that troubles our teachers is the effective provision of additional support needs provision within our school. I welcome very much the interest that has been taken in the subject by the Education and Skills Committee, and I have today written to the convener—I am writing to the convener of the Education and Skills Committee to set out the Government response to the committee's work. One part of that is that the Government is prepared to undertake a review of co-ordinated support plans. I know that this is an issue that Ross Greer has raised within the committee, and no doubt it will cover in the debate today as an issue that he has raised a number of times. However, we will consider how to strengthen the guidance and other support that is available to education authorities on co-ordinated support plans, and we will develop that work in partnership with stakeholders to ensure that in every respect we are meeting the needs of every pupil in our country. One of the most important things that we have to focus on is what is achieved by our learners. What relates directly to the Education and Skills Committee inquiry that is currently under way. Our learners are achieving more within Scottish education. They are going on to better destinations than they have ever gone on to before, with more than 94 per cent of young people leaving school going into a positive destination within three months of leaving school. That is the outcome and the achievement of what I am afraid Johann Lam will have to forgive me. I will give way in my closing remarks. Those positive destinations are at a record level recognising the appropriateness and the value of the curricular approach that has been taken to support young people within Scottish education, and I welcome the progress that has been made. At the heart of the Government's agenda, the unrelenting focus is to close the poverty-related attainment gap by the pursuit of excellence and equity for all. That is what founds Government education policy. That is the consistent direction that we are delivering for education within Scotland. We aim to do that by empowering the teaching profession, by encouraging teachers to operate with a sense of professional agency supported by professional development, and all of the mechanisms to enable that to happen are now being put in place within Scottish education. I move the amendment that stands in my name. I look forward to a debate that focuses on what we can achieve to transform the lives of young people in Scotland through the power of education. Presiding Officer, I rise to support the motion on the amendment in my name. It is worth going back to the First Minister's start in office and what she said about education as a priority. Key interventions were a first-person piece in the daily record in May 2015, in the speech in which Tavish Scott referred to, given at Westerhales education centre in August of that year. The daily record piece was where the First Minister said, I have a sacred responsibility to make sure that every young person in our land gets the same chance that I had. She also said, making sure that the Scottish education system becomes genuinely one of the best in the world will be a driving and defining priority of my Government. In her speech at WEC, she told us that she wanted to close the attainment gap completely, so we are entirely entitled to ask four years later how that is going. In the daily record, the First Minister made much of the fact that fewer young people, she said, were leaving school with no qualifications at all. However, four years on, that trend has reversed, and now more young people leave school with nothing at all. The numbers are small, but they matter just as much as those who get five hires matter. I know that the Government will say that it moves on to positive destinations, but as long as those positive destinations include exploitative zero-hour work, that is not an acceptable answer. Meanwhile, the evidence shows that, in our schools, the curriculum is narrowing with some subjects in danger of disappearing altogether. I do not know if the First Minister studied French, German or art in S4, but if she did, today's pupils are very much in danger of not having the same opportunities that she did. As for those who go on to hires, yes, more of them are achieving five hires, but teachers and educationalists tell us that most of that progress came before the new national exams were introduced and that choices are narrowing now at higher level 2, pass rates are falling and there is a significant decline, as Mr Scott referred to, in those gaining hires in critical subjects such as modern languages and STEM subjects. Back in 2015, the First Minister promised to invest in teacher numbers and announced funding to close the attainment gap, and she said that she was going to track progress with new standardised tests, yet four years later, and there are still 3,000 fewer teachers than we had 12 years ago. Mr Scott is right that any increase that we have seen of around 1,000 has been funded through attainment money and most of those jobs are temporary contracts. As for the standardised tests, what a shambles that has been. The education secretary tells us that they are not meant to provide national data at all, while teachers tell us that they provide no useful information to them. Meanwhile, the Government has abolished the measures of attainment that we had, so educationalists tell us that we now have no way of measuring attainment and core skills such as literacy and numeracy. After four years, the Government has left us with no way to judge them on that sacred responsibility. It has failed to restore teacher numbers and it is presiding over a narrowing of the curriculum that is seen by young people with no qualifications on their eyes. Our amendment points to the core problem that has not been addressed. Spending per primary pupil has fallen by £427 a head and in secondary by £265 per pupil since 2010-11. Let us be clear. Our teachers are doing a great job. Our pupils do us proud but they are doing it in the face of less money, fewer teachers, bigger classes and multi-level teaching. They are doing it in the context of unwanted and unnecessary reforms and, above all, they are doing it in the face of cuts to core budgets, which additional funding that is designed to close the attainment gap has to be used to fill funding gaps instead of narrowing that attainment gap. Our schools are certainly not failing but that is in spite, not because of this Government's education policy, which certainly is. I call on laws, Liz Smith to open the Conservative five minutes. The 2015 OECD report, which examined Scottish schools, said some very interesting things. It is in that context that I want to address the motion brought to Parliament by Tavis Scott, which the Scottish Conservatives will be supporting. That report made plain just why investment in education is so important. It also said why Scotland has so much potential strength in its underlying ethos about why there were so many good things in Scottish education but also why, as yet, we are not able to harness that full potential. I do not doubt for a minute the very genuine concern across this chamber, including across the cabinet secretary, to deliver the highest standards for our young people. It seems to me abundantly clear that there are several key things getting in the way of the SNP's approach to fulfilling that promise. The OECD report acknowledged that, when you introduce educational reform, you cannot possibly expect things to turn round overnight, hence why it would have been not sensible to evaluate CFE in the first few years of implementation. However, it goes on to say that the mid-term evaluation of CFE is crucial. It worried that Scotland was not sufficiently data-rich for exactly the reasons that Ian Gray set out when it comes to the measurement of that progress, something that, of course, made it all the more surprising that the Scottish Government wanted to remove Scotland from some other helpful international data. We cannot go on hoping that things will turn around when we know that there are some fundamental flaws in the accuracy of measurement. It is surely urgent that there is a comprehensive review of CFE, not its principles but its structures. If that does not happen soon, its whole risen debt will be called into question. As Tavish Scott rightly said, nobody wants that. The OECD makes the point strongly that a priority area for evaluation is to follow closely how CFE is being implemented on the ground. It is very fair to say that the inquiries led by the education committee of this Parliament on attainment subject choice have thrown considerable concern from the ground about the implementation of CFE. Let me give two examples. In the debate about P1 testing, there was considerable concern expressed about whether the purpose of that testing was clear, whether it was formative or summative. The cabinet secretary himself seemed to muddy the waters on this issue when he gave evidence to the committee on 20 February, because it is that lack of clarity and unwillingness to respect some of the concerns of Parliament that led to further confusion over the P1 test. On subject choice, the real problem that has been flagged up is the complete disconnect between the BGE and the senior phase. Designed, it seems, in each case by different agencies, and the result that there is now a lack of accountability. To some extent, schools and local authorities have become confused about their role. The cabinet secretary said in the last debate on subject choice that there is a tension between CFE allowing schools to have their own autonomy, but also national standards being adhered to. I think that he has a point on that, but they are not and should not be incompatible when it comes to the curriculum. I am grateful to Liz Smith for giving me, because she does a light on a point that I simply find difficult to comprehend about the Conservatives' stance here. The Conservatives have long argued, and I respect their point of view, for there to be diversity and choice within the decisions that are made at school level. She seems to be proffering an argument, which is that there should be more central direction to that than there has been up until now. I wonder whether she could clarify where the Conservatives are on that question. Yes, absolutely, cabinet secretary. There is the same question that you asked in the last debate, which I answered. I fundamentally believe that there has to be a core curriculum that includes what we traditionally see as the core subjects, after which you build around that, the flexibility that CFE is designed to have. That is something that many schools have come to agree on. That is what the whole debate is about, the column structure. There is no reason why we cannot have that core curriculum as well as the flexibility that is required from the new subjects and the new skills that have been developed. I do not see why that is incompatible, and I do not think that many schools see that either. When it comes to the breadth of the curriculum for which Scotland has obviously been well-renowned, what happened in the past is that youngsters had English and maths and had a discipline in social science in modern languages, but at the moment, because of the subject choice issues, we seem to be having a squeeze on some of that choice facility. That is the concern. As Tavish Scott rightly said at the committee this morning, we have not had an answer as to how that benefits young people. Obviously, their experience is completely different in some local authorities. Can I finish on that point? That is the central problem about curriculum for excellence just now, is that there is this disconnect between BGE and also the senior phase. I call Ross Greer before we move to open debate on Liam McArthur. Ross Greer, I am grateful to Tavish Scott for bringing forward a debate on education in the Parliament this afternoon. It is a continuing frustration for many of us that education is rarely something that we discuss on Government time, leaving opposition parties to use our sparse opportunities to bring up one of the most important issues of public policy in Scotland. It is important not least because education is one of the many areas where the shameful levels of inequality in our society are on display. We all believe that every young person should be given the same opportunity to succeed, but we know that that is not the case right now in this country. Pupils from wealthy areas are more likely to succeed both by academic measures and in wider life outcomes than their counterparts from more deprived communities. Most of the underlying reasons for that lie outwith our schools. Many of them lie at the feet of the UK Government. Child poverty is growing again largely because of a cruel UK welfare system designed to punish rather than support, but the Scottish Government is not powerless. It has the capacity to do something genuinely transformative. As the Greens set out in our education paper last year level the playing field, policies such as topping up child benefit by £5 or expanding free bus travel to young people will have a huge impact. They will have an impact on young people's education outcomes. We know that from experience elsewhere. The Government may have wasted the first half of this Parliament on an education governance bill designed to go nowhere, but now that is indefinitely shelved. There is time to do something much more meaningful. There are about 3,000 fewer teachers today in Scotland than in 2007. The challenges of recruitment and retention are disproportionately felt by schools in our most deprived communities and are driven in large part by issues of pay and work code. I marched with the EIS in Glasgow when they brought close to 30,000 people on to the streets for their fair pay campaign. The Greens welcomed the agreement reach between unions, councils and the Scottish Government, but pay and recruitment are not the only issues. Time and again, we are told of the huge issues that young people face with additional support needs and those who are trying to provide that support. The number of pupils with identified additional needs has risen to one in four, while the number of ASN teachers and support staff has fallen by hundreds. Now that the staff census is merging additional support needs and classroom assistance into one generalised category, it is making it impossible to get an accurate picture of the number of specialist staff who are supporting children with additional needs. Children with those needs have statutory rights under current legislation, but the existing framework can be difficult to navigate for young people, for their parents and carers, for schools and for local authorities. Our education committee has taken evidence on the issue of local councils themselves, not fully understanding what is required of them and what options are available to them. Coordinated support plans are critical to that, and there were much of the confusion lies. They set out clearly what support pupils with particularly profound needs should be receiving, and crucially, as in the statutory plan, they are backed by recourse to the additional support needs tribunal. We are not short of testimonials from young people and parents who have gone through experiences that are nothing short of traumatic, but who, for the lack of a CSP, have had a little opportunity for recourse. While the number of pupils identified with an additional need has increased to almost 200,000, the number of CSPs has dropped to just under 2,000 today. That is 1 per cent of young people with identified additional needs having a co-ordinated support plan. Anecdotally, it seems that councils, when they do understand CSPs, are reluctant to use them given the resource implications. While the anecdotally evidence is substantial, we need to quite urgently get a picture of what exactly is going on. Following our calls for it in this Parliament on a number of occasions, we welcome the Government's commitment to review the use of CSPs. We expect the review to establish why the number has fallen and, at the same time, as young people with diagnosed additional needs have grown markedly. We expect the Government to immediately follow that with action to rectify the problem. Addressing CSPs alone will not fix every problem in the education system, but it is the right thing to do and we have asked for it, so the Greens will vote for the amendment today. That is a step forward for the rights of some of our most vulnerable young people. I am glad that today's debate has given us the opportunity to take that step, but I hope that the Scottish Government will recognise the need and the demand for them to go much further. I call Liam McArthur to be followed by Jenny Gilruth. Four years ago, like Liz Smith, I was a member of the Parliament's education committee. Since then, what the committee has gained in skills appears to have lost in culture, in remit at least. However, what remains unchanged is the controversy and confusion surrounding the SNP Government's national standardised test. Given its origins in the 2016 act, I cannot say that I find that at all surprising. Bounced by the First Minister's announcement that education was to be her number one priority and that the attainment gap would be closed completely, the then education secretary, Angela Constance, had to come up with a cunning plan. In response, we had a national improvement framework put on a statutory footing, paving the way for the reintroduction of national standardised tests. News to gladden the heart of Michael Forsyth, perhaps, but certainly not what teachers, parents and other stakeholders have been insisting to the committee was required to address gaps in attainment. To make matters worse, the committee was then given no detail about that framework or, indeed, the tests involved. It was the classic pig in a poke. The story kept changing. Faced with compelling evidence that teachers already had a wealth of information on which to base assessments and tailor learning for pupils, SNP ministers claimed that it was no good because it was not standardised. When it was suggested that national standardisation would inevitably lead to league tables, ministers retorted that data would not be available at school or local authority level, begging the question, what is the point? No one disputes the importance of tackling attainment, but, as children in Scotland observed at the time, the educational inequalities that stem from socioeconomic disadvantage are complex and multifaceted. They accused ministers of reducing what is a complex set of issues to an easily identifiable slogan with the hope that this will be amenable to equally short-term solutions. Such a damning conclusion echoed earlier criticism from Keir Bloomer, who labelled the Government approach pious thinking, mascarading as policymaking. Roll forward four years and, as I said, the confusion surrounding and at the heart of the SNP Government's approach to national standardised testing only appears to have deepened. Parliament has, of course, voted to halt the testing of P1 pupils despite that Mr Swinney simply ignores the will of Parliament. In the meantime, 11,500 P1 tests have taken place in schools across Scotland this academic year. As for the justification for the tests, the story keeps changing and history keeps on being rewritten. In their desperation to retrofit a case for national standardised testing, ministers have even gone as far as to shamefully misrepresent the views of international educational experts. It was claimed that Dylan William, Professor of Educational Assessment at UCL and UCLA's Professor Popham, were supporters of regimes like the SNP's testing proposals. Professor William called this, quote, a perverse misrepresentation of his work, while Professor Popham insistent that it was flat out incorrect. In attempting a clumsy apology, the First Minister then made matters worse by questioning Professor William's understanding of formative assessment. After all the ducking and diving, where has this left us? Well, as Ian Gray rightly observed, certainly no nearer closing gaps in attainment, far less closing them completely. As tests concluded earlier this year, Scotland does not have a standardised testing regime, it just has a badly named national literacy and numeracy test that is costing millions. Whatever they now are, they do not command the confidence of teachers, parents, children or academic experts, and they should be dropped. I support the motion. I was going to start today by saying that perhaps for the first time in his life Tavish Scott is right, but I have to say that I found his contribution today rather depressing. Nonetheless, Mr Scott's motion states that there is no more important investment than in the education of Scotland's young people. They are the future of this country, and on that point, he is right. Unless we have an education system that will ensure that they all have the same opportunities to succeed in life irrespective of which party is in government, then we all will have failed them. Today's motion questions the Government's focus mentioning its policies, staff conditions, recruitment and retention, or the means of measurement of Scottish education. I do not want to be the pupil who blames the question here, but a bit more focus and a full debate might have allowed us to make more progress today. As the cabinet secretary has previously mentioned, I am sure that we will all welcome the recently agreed teacher pay settlement. The enhanced pay deal means that an unpromoted teacher will now earn more than £41,000 a year. The deal means that we avoided industrial action. The deal means that our children's education did not suffer. However, the deal also secured a commitment to tackle workload, support teacher professional development and to enhance leadership. On workload, I recall being in the pub when the original pay deal was rejected with two of my good friends and former teaching colleagues, both voted to accept the original deal. Both do not vote SNP—what can I say—to attract those people, but both ruled the view that it was not just about the money on the table, a growing concern for them around workload related to additional support needs. For that reason, I very much welcome the Government's amendment today to a commitment to review rather than the use of co-ordinated support plans. We know that additional support needs are increasing and that part of that increase is because we now have a system that is better equipped to identify those needs. One second. Although all teachers should have a baseline understanding of ASN from either their post-graduate qualification or their BED, all young people should be receiving the support that they need and their parents or carers should not have to challenge education authorities to ensure that that happens. Oliver Mundell. I thank the member for giving way. When additional support needs suddenly bumped up the agenda and why it has taken the Government until today to recognise there was a problem. Jenny Gilruth. I thank Oliver Mundell for the intervention. I fundamentally do not accept that point. We have already carried out an inquiry on the committee, so I am not necessarily sure why he does not think that it is on the Government's agenda. In terms of looking at teacher retention, I have previously highlighted my own frustrations in the chamber about the lack of power that I had as a faculty head to appoint because I had to take someone a surplus and even when it came to the permanent appointment I was not able to interview. That is why teacher empowerment is also so important. We are now moving in Scotland from a top-down system from local authority level to a collegiate system, which is focused on teacher agency, which is exactly what the Education and Skills Committee heard in its evidence this morning. Part of that shift will be supported by the regional improvement collaboratives but part of it also has to come from the profession. Opportunities for CPD will be vital in that respect and local authorities must also play their part. In 2011, I undertook qualifications through Dundee University to obtain history credits, allowing me to become dual-qualified. My employer at the Time Edinburgh City Council part of funded that qualification as an investment in me as an aspiring faculty head. That meant that I was retained because my opportunities were not curtailed. On the other hand, we need to look at the practicalities of timetabling CPD opportunities. I will recall this time eight years ago having had late responsibility for organising our annual S3 trip to London, being knee-deep in SQA marking and having to complete a history assignment all at the same time. Creating opportunities for staff to flourish, particularly in secondary, depends largely on timetabling opportunities appropriately. As my fellow secondary teachers will know, that was always meant to be an excellent time of year in the school calendar because May meant study leave. It meant a chance to catch up to plan for the year ahead because May meant time. We also need to talk about the progression pathways for teachers. The Education and Skills Committee heard evidence just last week about the faculty structure narrowing promotional opportunities for classroom teachers. While pay is undoubtedly important, if you want to retain talent, you have to give folks somewhere to go. We have pupil pathways, so what about teacher pathways? Time is short today, so I will conclude with a quote from Professor Andy Hargreaves, who told the Education and Skills Committee earlier this year about the importance of stability of government when committing to deliver educational reform. He said, "...Singapore does not have a democracy as we would understand it and so has complete stability of government. We can get such stability through cross-party agreement and consensus that education is above political infighting. That is pretty much where we are in both Finland." In that respect, I urge you not to be like Singapore but perhaps to be a little bit more like Finland. Perhaps today's debate is an opportunity to do just that, to put the pedagogy above politics. We can but hope. Thank you very much. I call Alison Harris to be filled by Joanne Lamont. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Well, here we are again. We are only two weeks into May, and this is the second education debate that we have had led by opposition parties in those 14 days. I want to be very clear to the Scottish Government on one point in particular. This is not political opportunism, as the SNP are fond of saying. This is a genuine and serious concern that is held by parties across this chamber about the current state of Scottish education. Stakeholders from all walks of life and MSPs today have highlighted the various ways in which our education system is deteriorating. Here are some examples. Scotland's performance in the international PISA results has continually declined under the SNP. Teacher numbers have fallen by over 3,100 since 2007-8. Public opinion ratings of our schools are at record lows, and subject choice has narrowed for children entering S4. Last week, we heard from Larry Flanagan, head of the largest teaching union in Scotland, who talked of an explosion in multi-level teaching since the introduction of the curriculum for excellence. The combined class method of teaching is not ideal and has had a negative effect on everyone. One thing that could have begun to turn things around was the SNP's flagship education bill, but that was scrapped just before last summer's recess. While, Presiding Officer, the Government may have scrapped the bill, but it has not scrapped the problems. The Education and Skills Committee has recently been hearing evidence from several stakeholders on the reduction in subject choice. In last week's sessions, Francisco Valderahigill, from the Scottish Council of Deans of Education, pointed out that the reduction in subject choice is having knock-on effects on modern languages. He said, and I quote, In 2011 and 2012, there were 28,000 students doing standard-grade French, and we have 6,000 or 7,000 now. I'm sorry, I've only got four minutes. That's approximately a 75 per cent drop. That's incredible. However, when faced with these facts, the SNP revert to denial tactics. We have heard the First Minister—I'm sorry, could you please be quiet, Ms Galruth? I'm not taking interjections from you. However, when faced with these facts, the SNP revert to denial tactics. We have heard the First Minister refusing to answer questions from across the benches on subject choice, instead pointing to statistics about higher attainment. Of course, we welcome improvements in attainment, but trying to say that reduced choice, fewer teachers, the death of some subjects at school and a fall in international standards is somehow okay because current pupils are getting more hires is completely missing the point. If, as the First Minister likes to say, the evidence from our education system does not bear out the analyses that we have brought to the chamber, then why are teachers, classroom assistants, parents and education experts from far and wide saying that there is a problem with our current education system? I am not an education list nor a professor, a teacher or indeed an ex-teacher. However, when you have Margery Care, President of the Scottish Association of Geography teachers, saying that S1 to S3 was heavily planned for in the new curriculum, yet S4, S5 and S6 were a rushed afterthought, I think that we have to accept that we need change. Scotland's education system is no longer world class. We are letting Scottish children down. We need to come together, face facts and get on with fixing the problems. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. Anybody who knows me knows that at my very core, I want to build consensus. I want people to agree with each other, but you cannot on the one hand ask for cross-party consensus and building of that agreement and then impuyn the motives of those who look at the evidence and express concerns. It is unacceptable simply to say that when people look at the evidence that something needs to be done, you say that you are only doing that because. I also agreed with her that Tavish Scott's speech was depressing because what it identified were the challenges that we face in the education system and the failure so far for the First Minister to live up to her own ambition. That depression is not an attack on Tavish Scott. It should be a call to us to recognise the scale and challenge ahead of us. I recognise the constraints that have been placed on his budget by decisions made elsewhere to follow austerity. No matter the size of your budget, you have a responsibility for the choices that you make within that budget. I simply do not understand why the Government has prioritised disproportionately cuts to local government when local government is one of the key drivers to addressing inequality, disadvantage and poverty in our communities. In the short time that I have, I want to highlight the issue of multilevel teaching in senior phase, an issue that teachers have flagged up to me directly and we have heard in evidence. As has already been said, Larry Flanagan of the EIS told our committee that there had been, quote, an explosion in multilevel teaching. Obviously, that is a concern. What I want to know is that that multilevel teaching that may involve nap 4, nap 5, higher and advanced higher in the one class now seems far from being exceptional. A rare response to exceptional circumstances may now be the norm. Does the cabinet secretary think that that is acceptable? Does he agree with Education Scotland that that is not an issue? Or does he recognise that there is a serious issue here about ensuring that all our young people are getting the best learning opportunities possible and that common sense tells us that it is much more challenging for staff and students to learn in those multilevel classes? Has he even considered the impact on young people with additional support needs to be in a multilevel class? I want in particular to emphasise the danger that multilevel teaching, far from assisting in closing the attainment gap, may be compounding the inequality that already has the advantage that young people are experiencing. Does John Lamont recognise that multilevel teaching happened under standard grade previously, where you would have foundation general credit in the same class? It also happened under the previous higher structure, where you might have intermediate to higher and advanced higher in the same class. That is not something new. The question that I am asking is whether it is moving from something that happened from time to time to something that is now the norm and is being timetabled for. An explosion, the EIS said, people are telling us in a way that it has happened in much further, more difficulty than in the past. I ask you to consent to recognise that we are potentially making things more difficult for young people who are already disadvantaged. What quality impact assessment has been done on the acceptance by Education Scotland and the decisions at local level to allow increased use of multilevel teaching? Has he looked at the profile of the subjects where we get more multilevel teaching and the schools where that is happening? Has the cabinet secretary looked at whether there is a connection between multilevel teaching and schools in more deprived areas? My fear is that what was happening in our most disadvantaged schools has a less capacity to deliver on a range of subjects. There is more likelihood that young people will have to travel away from school to access subjects and that the reality of multilevel teaching will be disproportionately felt in poorer communities. There are areas that need more support, not less. In conclusion, can I seek an assurance from the cabinet secretary that he does take that matter seriously and that he will at least look at the potential benefits of directing resources to schools that would benefit from a different teacher allocation model that would reduce the use of multilevel teaching in those disadvantaged areas rather than increase it? Thank you very much. I call Gordon MacDonald before we move to the first of our closing speeches. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is the 20th anniversary of the Scottish Parliament. In examining our education system, I will highlight what progress has been made over those years. A good starting point would be the Scottish Executive report on the national debate on education published in 2002 that began the introduction of curriculum for excellence. Back then, 49,500 teachers taught 753,000 pupils in 3,000 schools. The teacher pupil ratio was 15.2. Today, with 64,000 fewer pupils than in 1999-2000, the teacher pupil ratio has improved to 13.6. Compare that to the rest of the UK, where in England the ratio is 17.9 or in Wales where it is 19.5. Scotland has the smallest class sizes in the UK. In 1999, most young people left school in S4, and only 22 per cent of S5 pupils gained three or more hires. Today, the majority of young people stay on to fifth and sixth year, resulting in 45 per cent of pupils gaining three or more hires. Back in 2007, when this Government came to power, only 61 per cent of school buildings were rated good or satisfactory. Today, that is 87 per cent, with 847 schools having been built or substantially refurbished since 2007-08. In comparison, according to the Royal Institute of British Architects, only 5 per cent of 60,000 buildings in schools surveyed in England were in top condition, performed as intended and operating efficiently. The report also highlighted separate figures that suggested that almost a quarter of councils in England rated the condition of school buildings in their areas as extremely poor or very poor. Not only are our schools in better condition, we also have more of them per 100,000 pupils than anywhere else in the UK, with 361 schools per 100,000 pupils in Scotland, 324 in Wales and 262 in England. Teachers pay is substantially higher for classroom teachers than anywhere else in the UK, by much as £5,000 when they reach the top of their scale, resulting in 500 more teachers last year in their schools continuing the trend of more teachers every year since 2014 and the highest number of primary teachers since 1980. Compared to 20 years ago, we have better teacher pupil ratios, better schools, more of them and a larger number of pupils are leaving school with higher qualifications, giving them the opportunity to study at university. Record numbers of Scots are attending university with 37,000 studying for a degree at higher education institutions, including more of them from our deprived communities. Presiding Officer, there is one issue that does not get enough exposure regarding education, or should I say the lack of it in previous years? Back in 2006-07, the number of pupils in Scottish schools who had either temporary exclusions or had been removed from the register under the last Labour Lib Dem Scotland executive was 45,000. That is 45,000 young people who missed out on educational opportunities. To put it in context, 64 out of every 1,000 pupils were excluded from education. Today, that number is down to 27 out of every 1,000. Still too many excluded, however, much better than the position south of the border where 382,000 pupils were given a temporary exclusion representing 50 in every 1,000 pupils excluded from school. I will leave the final point to Councillor Steve McCabe of COSLA, who wrote to the Education and Skills Committee this month on our inquiry and subjects choices and stated that it is our view that the way in which local authorities and our schools currently deliver the curriculum represents the most effective way to achieve equity and excellence in Scottish education. Thank you very much. We now move to closing speeches. I call Ian Gray to be followed by Oliver Mundell. Thank you very much. The poet Alexander Scott, back in 1972, wrote a sequence called Scotch of epigrams, where he described the Scottish version of various things. My own favourite is Scottish equality, but it includes a swear word, so I am not going to read it, but he had one called Scotch education, which simply read, I tell you, I tell you. There is no way that that describes the pedagogy in our schools nowadays is much more sophisticated and better than that. I think that Mr Scott is right. It does rather describe the approach of the Government to education in recent years. They tell us what they are going to do. They tell us that it is working. They tell us that everything is fine. They impose their reforms in the face of opposition from pretty well everyone, whether it is tests, the regional collaboratives, the new exams themselves, all brought in and imposed against the wishes of local authorities, teachers and parents. They often take the same approach to this Parliament and have ignored the views of this Parliament on issues such as primary one testing. That has been one of the problems that we have had over recent years. I accept, however, that in the Scottish National Party amendment this evening, the Government does show a little humility on one issue, that of additional support needs. We will not be able to support the amendment in the first instance, at least because it pre-empt ours. I think that the cabinet secretary will understand that, but I agree that it does show some humility on additional support needs, but it is very late in the day. The figures on additional support needs are remarkable. 81,000 more pupils are identified as having additional support needs. As Mr Greer said, there are around 400 fewer specialist teachers in place. The First Minister has this afternoon written to the education committee in response to our letter about additional support needs. As far as I can see, what he is promising as an additional resource is an online resource produced by Education Scotland. That is just not a serious response to the concerns that we heard about. As for co-ordinated support plans, yes, we need to see more of them, but we have to understand that they provide legal rights that must then be respected and not disregarded in the way, for example, legal rights on waiting times in the NHS have been. As for teachers pay, I absolutely welcome the teachers pay deal, but it is a little rich for Mr Swinney to pose as a teacher's friend, since the pay deal was dragged out of it by two years of national campaigning, several mass rallies, and the threat of strike action. Ross Greer is absolutely right that the pay rise is very welcome, but workload issues remain to be addressed. I talked a little bit about the First Minister's speech at Westerhales Education Centre. What is a school that I know quite well? I teach and practice there back in the late 70s, and from 1999 for four years I represented it when I was the MSP for Edinburgh Pentlands. It is a tremendous school, imaginative, innovative, absolutely at the centre of the community that it serves. It has made enormous progress in terms of attainment and achievement of its pupils. The First Minister was quite right to choose it to make a keynote and showcase speech, but the irony is that only a couple of years after that, the SNP led Edinburgh Council planned to close work down and to rationalise it by merging it with another school. It was only a big campaign by local parents in the community that managed to stop that idea. That was very nearly a telling illustration of the gap between the rhetoric and the reality of an underfunded education system under this Government. Oliver Mundell, to be followed by John Swinney. Oliver Mundell, I begin by thanking Tavish Scott for affording us another opportunity to talk about the Government's so-called number one priority. As other members have said, it is just a shame that, once again, the debate is taking place in opposition time. We are, as my colleague Liz Smith set out at the beginning of the debate, happy to support the Liberal Democrat motion and the Labour amendment at decision time. We will not, however, be supporting the SNP Government's attempt to airbrush challenges that we face out of the motion, however consensual their alternative proposed text is. While, like Iain Gray, I am pleased that the cabinet secretary recognises the importance of co-ordinated support plans and recognises the significant system-wide shortcomings when it comes to the delivery of support for those with additional needs. I am perhaps less charitable in my characterisation because I do not understand why that could not have been added as an addition to the motion. It seems a shame that such an important issue is effectively being used as a fig leaf to spare the cabinet secretary's blushes and to fend off another defeat for the SNP in this chamber. It seems very difficult to see how a Government, which can in full recognise the failings within the system and recognise the fact that it has been in charge of education in this country for more than a decade, where the system that is most important for many families and our children is at best stagnating and, according to many experts and many of those who care very passionately about education, is potentially getting worse. I cannot see how a Government that ignores those voices and ignores the many concerns and continues to stick its head in the sand, can possibly build consensus or turn things around. Issuing restatements of what they should have been doing anyway does not cut it for me and I do not think that it cuts it for parents. Of course, if you say that, you must be blaming hardworking teachers and speaking in depressing terms and talking our young people down. Of course, the Government's failure to listen and act is absolutely no part to play in the matter. They are only there to take credit when things are going well. Many members representing constituencies, the length and breadth of Scotland, have expressed their own concerns in this debate. Some have chosen to talk about Scotland and others even after 20 years of devolution have continued to talk about decisions that have been taken elsewhere. I am sure that people watching and listening to those proceedings at home will see through that. However, I would feel remiss not to highlight the situation in my own local authority, which is jointly run by the SNP. To ask the cabinet secretary whether he thinks that it is acceptable for the current administration to be cutting teacher numbers in the region and enforcing a higher pupil teacher ratio for composite classes. What does he have to say to parents who now face the prospect that their children could be taught in a small or rural school with up to 25 pupils in the same classroom aged 4 to 12? Why, when he claims to be giving more money to education, does he think that the council are claiming that this change is now financially necessary? I am deeply concerned that these significant cuts will put the safety of individual teachers and pupils at risk. It will make the task of recruiting new teachers to work in smaller schools even more difficult and will in effect lead to the closure of small rural schools over time by stealth. It seems worse to me because it is in contradiction to the Scottish Government's own policies and guidelines. This for me is yet another sign that our system is under strain and under such strain now that equity and excellence appear to come second best to financial constraints and bureaucracy. Where is the empowerment for those head teachers who not only lose out on pupil equity funding—a point that I have been raising now for two years—but who also now see that existing staff are being removed from their school by the central local authority without adequate consultation? I would really be grateful to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say to that. John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. One of the points in Tavish Scots motion criticises the focus of the Government's education agenda. Ross Greer made the point very strongly that the focus of any education system—and I am very proud that it is the focus of the education system that I have the responsibility to lead and to steward—is the tackling of inequality, because the core focus of any education system must be to tackle inequality where it exists in our society and to ensure that every young person is able to fulfil their potential. It was for those reasons that my predecessors, across a number of different political parties, including my own, undertook the reforms that led to the creation of curriculum for excellence. Of course, curriculum for excellence relies on two critical foundations—the broad general education and the senior phase of education. I want to take a few moments to just talk about the issue of breadth of the curriculum, because that has been very much underpinning the inquiry that the Education and Skills Committee has been undertaking, and it has been the commentary of a number of contributors to this debate. I do not believe that the broad general education narrows the educational opportunities of young people. I totally reject that point of view, because the broad general education is designed to give young people the opportunity to experience eight curricular areas with a breadth and depth of learning that was greater in the broad general education than when I was educated in the 1970s and 1980s. The debate about narrowing of the curriculum ignores the fundamental element of the reform. I can accept a lot of that about BGE. Where there is narrowing is in the senior phase of the core curriculum. That is why the Education and Skills Committee is having an inquiry about the issue, and that is the main concern of so many people who have given evidence to it. We will look at all those issues in further detail, but that brings me on to the senior phase where there are curricular models that essentially offer young people, in the much criticised sixth choice option in S4, curricular options taken forward in individual schools and local authorities, which, over a three-year period, offer young people 18 options to take forward senior phase qualifications. That is more options than I had when I was at school to take forward, and I took forward the maxim that I had available to me, but it is about looking at the senior phase as a three-year experience, not as a one-year experience in S4. Cavish Godd? I am entirely grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving me a way. I entirely take the point that he just made about the three-year senior phase, but would that not be one of the aspects that could be carefully considered by the OECD review that Parliament considered last week, and I think that, in fairness, the Government accepted as part of Ian Gray's motion of fortnight or so ago? Is that not exactly the kind of issue that could be addressed in that midterm review of CFE? I think that that is entirely one of the issues that could be looked at this question. What that takes us into is a debate that has rippled its way through this debate, which is the degree to which there should be autonomy and empowerment at local level to decide on curricular choices and the degree to which there should be prescription from the centre. The Parliament knows where I stand on this debate. I want maximum curricular choice at the local level, and I will defend that, and I will assert that. That is a central part of the education reforms that I am taking forward, which, counter to what Ian Gray said, are not opposed by everybody. We are now implementing the education reform agenda about the empowerment of schools that I agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. That implementation agenda is now under way, with the publication of the head teacher's charter, the review of financial mechanisms, the extension of curricular choice and staffing choices for schools at local level. All of that is an agenda that is proceeding forward. I do not have much more time to sum up on the debate, but let me just say this in conclusion to Parliament. I am very keen to engage in a recent debate about the substance and the opportunities of education. I engage with the education system every single day. I hear and see lots of very strong examples of innovation, of creativity being undertaken at local level. We are investing in it with the teachers' pay deal that I have talked about in my earlier remarks. We are investing in it by pupil equity funding, which is making a huge difference at local level. We are investing in it in the Scottish attainment challenge. We are investing in it by increased resources for local authorities. We will continue to do that in pursuit of the Government's policy focus on education, which is to deliver excellence and equity for all our pupils and to ensure that young people go on to the best destinations that they possibly can do as a result of experience in the world-class education that they can get in Scotland. Anna Cullen, will you ready to conclude our debate? Members will be aware that this is mental health week. I want to draw attention to a couple of important statistics about how that impacts on our education system. Perhaps it gives us a little bit of a window into its world. Half of all teachers, as a result of pressure at work, had a mental health problem exacerbated or caused. Secondly, 44 per cent of teachers have had to see a doctor as a result of their mental health problem. To me, that tells us about the significant pressure that those teachers are under. We need those teachers to excel in order to get our education system back up to being the best again. Our futures are in their hands. I think that we owe them much better than that. I think that we need to devise a system that is supporting our school teachers rather than causing all that pressure. I am grateful to Mr Rennie for giving me a way. I associate myself entirely with the comments that he has made about the importance of supporting and protecting the mental health of teachers, which is why our pay deal involves workload reductions into the bargain. Does Mr Rennie also accept that some of the judgments that are made at local authority level about the volume of subject choice is to protect the mental health of pupils who have faced a significant amount of stress by undertaking a larger number of qualifications than they currently undertake? Of course, we have got to trust the schools and teachers to make sure that they are looking after the mental health of their pupils. That is essential, and that is why we support the efforts that are going on in schools in order to support pupils with their mental health issues. However, I have to say that this Government is making it worse. If you look at the range of policies that have been devised by this Government in order to try to drive up the quality of education in Scotland, after that First Minister's speech four years ago, it is four years ago that members will be familiar with the fact that she made that speech about it being a sacred duty of hers, and she should be judged on that sacred duty. However, the policies that have been devised since then, as Ian Gray quite rightly pointed out, in many cases are unnecessary and unwanted. Take the national testing, which I thought Liam McArthur set out very well. He talked about the confused purpose. He talked about the fact that many teachers already had a scheme of assessing the performance of their pupils, that those new tests did not add anything to the sum of knowledge that they had. The Government's original intention was to be able to compare, and they said that of course we are not going to compare, because that could lead to league tables. What is the purpose of having standardised national tests if you cannot compare? That is a confused purpose, but since then, since that Parliament vote in September last year, the Government has carried on, regardless, 11,500 tests in schools, flouting the will of this institution. Look at curriculum for excellence. There was support right across the chamber for curriculum for excellence, but the Government's bungled implementation of it has undermined the curriculum for excellence. It was supposed to bring freedom to the teachers to be able to use the skills and talents that they have gained over the years. Now, it has resulted in increasing bureaucracy that has hindered their opportunity to do the best for their teachers. Look at the issue of the regional collaboratives, adding an extra layer of bureaucracy in our education system with confused accountability. The pupil equity fund—I was curious about John Swinney's endless praise of the pupil equity fund. He opposed it for five years while we asked him to implement it. In fact, one of his members, Willie Coffey, said that it would be dangerous and ridiculous to implement the policy. Now, John Swinney praises that policy, but the bungled implementation of that policy has resulted in an underspend of it in 2017-18. It is so poorly designed that it is also plugging the gaps in the funding that is provided to those schools. The nursery education is incredibly close to my heart. It is very important that it is the way to improve the life chances of young people. Look at the warnings from Audit Scotland and from Edinburgh Council, who say that the policy is now at risk. Maintain, Mary Todd, who is smiling me right just now, said that all of the news was encouraging. We have had an 18 per cent under recruitment on planned recruitment. We have a massive reduction in childminders. We have nurseries closing. That is not the good foundations for the rolling out of this policy. The Government has undermined the education system in this country. It is about time that it recognised that it is undermining that system and did its job properly. That concludes our debate on education. A point of order from Oliver Mundell. I raise a point of order under rule 8.17 of standing orders to seek your clarification as to whether the proper procedures are being followed in relation to the children eco-protection from assault Scotland bill, with particular reference to rule 12.8 on reports of committees and in relation to the wider committee guidance. Ahead of tomorrow's meeting, I have become aware that the clerks appear to have retrospectively edited the minutes of the committee's meeting of 25th April, originally posted on the Scottish Parliament website. A new document, not created until some two weeks after the meeting, now appears in its place, minus the critically important text confirming that the stage 1 report on the bill had been completed and arrangements for its publication were agreed. I received an email from the clerk on 30 April to confirm the embargo on the final report on 10 May. No meeting of the committee following 25 April and prior to 10 May referenced the bill on its agenda. As such, I would be grateful if you could clarify under what procedure the committee clerks amended the already published committee minutes of 25 April, what the rationale was for doing so, why all committee members were not formally made aware of that change, if you will ask for the original minutes to be reissued, whether you believe that the retrospective amendment of the minutes meets the level of transparency that is expected of the Parliament and whether you recognise the challenge that this creates when it comes to ensuring that due parliamentary process is followed. In relation to the report itself, I would be grateful if you could confirm to the chamber whether you believe that the report in question has been completed. If not, when and under what procedure the decisions of the committee taken on 25 April were reversed, if so, why it is not being published as intimated by the clerks? Why, again, all members of the committee were not formally notified of the change to publication plans? In the event that it is permissible for a committee to reopen a report or that it considers that the report is not completed, can you confirm if it would be open to any member of the committee to request that further oral evidence is taken from additional witnesses and, indeed, to revisit any text in sections that have already been agreed? In addition, if you would rule under the procedure outlined under section 5.67 of the guidance on committees, whether you would consider it appropriate for a majority of members to comment further within a committee report on the views expressed by a minority without allowing the minority a further right to reply or, alternatively, to reconsider their previous decision to agree by consensus not to proceed under section 5.66 of committee guidance. Finally, in the event that you are unable to rule on all of those matters this evening, what advice can you give in relation to the procedural validity of any business or decisions relating to those matters that may be taken at the committee tomorrow morning? First of all, I want to say thank you to Oliver Mundell for giving me advance notice of what was obviously a lengthy and detailed point of order. I have considered this matter. I recognise that Mr Mundell has concerns and is looking for procedural advice as well as any other items that he wishes to raise. However, those strike me as matters for the committee itself and for the committee convener and clerks to advise on. In general, matters that might be points of order in the chamber are normally matters for a convener in the context of committee business. In this matter, I also note that the committee is meeting tomorrow morning, so my advice would be to pursue this matter with members of the committee, and particularly with the convener and clerks of the committee tomorrow morning. On that note, we will move now to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 17286, in the name of Graham Day. On behalf of the Parliament, we do setting out a business programme. I could have called on Graham Day to move that motion. I could have called on Graham Day to move the motion. No member wishes to speak in this motion, so the question is that motion 17286 be agreed. Are we agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of business motion 17287, in the name of Graham Day, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on the stage 2 timetable for a bill. I could again call on the minister to move this motion. Thank you very much. Again, no one wishes to speak on this motion. The question therefore is that motion 17287 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of three parliamentary bureau motions. Could I call on Graham Day to move motion 17288 on approval of an SSI, 17289 on designation of a lead committee and 17297 on a committee meeting at the same time as the Parliament? Thank you very much. We are going to turn now to decision time, and there are several questions this evening. I remind members before the first question, which is an amendment in the name of Jean Freeman, that if it is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Monica Lennon will fall. The first question is that amendment 17281.4, in the name of Jean Freeman, which seeks to amend motion 17281, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, on treatment time guarantee, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 17281.4, in the name of Jean Freeman, is yes, 57, no, 59. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 17281.1, in the name of Miles Briggs, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 17281.1, in the name of Miles Briggs, is yes, 53, no, 57. There were six abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 17281.2, in the name of Monica Lennon, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, are well agreed. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 17281.2, in the name of Monica Lennon, is yes, 53, no, 57. There were six abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 17281, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, on treatment time guarantee, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 17281, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, is yes, 53, no, 63. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore not agreed. Before we move to the next question, I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of John Swinney is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Ian Gray will fall. The question is that amendment 17282, in the name of John Swinney, which seeks to amend motion 17280, in the name of Tavish Scott, on education, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a division. Members may vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 17280, in the name of John Swinney is yes, 63, no, 52. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. That means that the amendment in the name of Ian Gray is preempted. We will move to the next question, which is that motion 17280, in the name of Tavish Scott, as amended, on education, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast. We will just check. Are we all agreed? Yes. No, we are agreed. I propose to ask a single question on three parliamentary bureau motions. Does anyone object? The question is that motions 17288, 17289 and 17297, in the name of Graham Day and Bathley Bureau, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We will move shortly to members' business, in the name of Kezia Dugdale, on foster care fortnight 2019. We will just take a few moments for members, the minister and others to change seats.