Scottish Parliament

Thursday 17 March 2005

[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 09:30]

Education

The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid): Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2597, in the name of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, on education.

09:30

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Lothians) (Con): I am grateful for the opportunity to open the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservative group of members of the Scottish Parliament. We know that Scotland pioneered the enlightenment ideal of education—a national system that offers education to all. The Scottish system was meritocratic and democratic. It rested on a ladder of opportunity that ascended from parish and burgh schools to universities and allowed able children to rise to eminence simply on the basis of their talent.

The Executive is taking education in the wrong direction. Education is over-centralised. Teachers are snowed under by directions from national and local officials who are too distant from the needs of parents and pupils. Better-off families can escape by paying fees or moving to a more sought-after catchment area, but those in areas of urban deprivation remain trapped in a spiral of decline.

In some cases, education is characterised by indiscipline and falling standards. Indiscipline will continue to haunt the Executive until it accepts that indiscipline is destroying teacher morale and adversely affecting other pupils' learning. We accept that in many cases indiscipline will take the form of low-level disruption in the classroom, but in an increasing number of cases, teachers and the well-behaved majority of pupils are subject to verbal and physical abuse.

Dr Sylvia Jackson (Stirling) (Lab): Will Lord James Douglas-Hamilton highlight exactly what his party would do to improve discipline? I am thinking of youngsters who are very disruptive in schools.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am happy to do so. I will elaborate my theme and come to that point soon.

In 2003, a member of school staff was attacked every 12 minutes of the school day. Of the 1,660 exclusions for physical attacks on teachers in 2004, only 21 were permanent. Professor Pamela

Munn's research found that 59 per cent of teachers consider discipline to be a serious problem. Despite all that, the Executive has decided to discontinue its annual publication of statistics on violence and indiscipline in schools.

The Minister for Education and Young People pledged to issue guidance to local authorities to help to maintain and develop robust arrangements for monitoring incidents of violence against school staff, but the recent inspectors' report on the implementation of the recommendations of the discipline task group report, "Better Behaviour—Better Learning", noted that many local authorities had yet to implement the guidance.

We want to protect teachers' rights to pursue their profession and to teach. Equally, we want to protect the right of the majority of children to learn unhindered. We would give schools and head teachers—not local authorities—final say over whether a pupil was expelled. We understand that adequate sanctions must be available that can be implemented effectively and which will deter bad behaviour. When absolutely necessary, teachers should have the power to expel.

Sylvia Jackson asked me a relevant question about how we would go through that process. With exclusions, we support second-chance learning centres, which are most certainly not to be confused with last-chance saloons. Second-chance learning centres will have a team of experts—educational psychologists, behavioural experts, health professionals, social workers and guidance counsellors—which means that the difficulties that a child encounters, which might differ in every case, should be properly dealt with.

We have made it clear that funding should follow the pupil. A premium or additional funds will be provided for children with special educational needs, which include behavioural difficulties.

Under our proposals, every child should have the opportunity to fulfil his or her potential. For those with additional support needs, additional support will be provided. I say to Sylvia Jackson that I understand that funding for a pupil with special educational needs could be about £50,000 a year. We must face up to reality. My key point is that the vast majority of pupils in classes should be allowed to proceed with their work unhindered. The final discretion should lie with head teachers.

We have long wished for Scotland's further education colleges to have an enhanced role. For too long, pupils, parents, teachers and some employers have viewed FE colleges as the poor relations of universities. That perception must change. Our business leaders desperately need people who have the vocational training that is necessary to plug Scotland's much-publicised

skills gap. In partnership with the business sector, our FE colleges are best placed to meet that need.

We would enable all pupils aged 14 or over who so wished to access vocational courses at FE colleges as part of their school education. We would also ensure that pupils were properly informed of the alternatives that are available to them on leaving school and were not pressured to attend university. We would support and encourage greater co-operation among schools, colleges and businesses, to ensure that courses provide the skills that business demands.

A more flexible education system that genuinely met the needs of children of all aptitudes and abilities and provided respected qualifications would enable all children to achieve their highest level, whether in floristry, higher history or whatever the subject might be. The existing one-size-fits-all system does not provide achievement for all. The state monopoly of education, coupled with poor motivation and classroom indiscipline, means that some standards of attainment are poor. Despite ever-increasing levels of Government spend, half of Scottish 14-year-olds do not meet the Government standard for writing; more than 11,000 young people did not enter work, education or training when they left school last year; and 3,185 young people left school with no qualifications in 2003—that represents 5.5 per cent of school leavers.

Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD): If we accept for the purpose of argument some of the points that have been made, will Lord James Douglas-Hamilton say how the measures that the Conservatives propose would have the remotest effect on such issues?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Our proposals would have a great deal of effect. They would provide far more opportunity and flexibility.

Grade inflation exists—that is not in doubt. The standard grade pass rate has reached 98 per cent and the number who gain five or more standard grades has increased by 10 per cent in the past five years. The ever-increasing pass rates suggest dumbing down in the constant effort to meet Executive targets.

Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP): Will Lord James Douglas-Hamilton give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I would very much like to give way to Mr Swinney, but I want to develop my theme.

We believe that we must stop concentrating on achieving centrally set targets and start concentrating on maintaining exam standards so that pupils' qualifications are held in high regard and receive appropriate recognition.

The School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 was passed under the previous Conservative Government and has served parents and schools effectively for the past 17 years. It gave parents a statutory right over the appointment of head teachers and deputy head teachers. Parents and school boards enjoy strong rights in shaping the management and ethos of a school. The Executive threatens to strip parents of those rights with its proposed legislation—

The Minister for Education and Young People (Peter Peacock): Nonsense.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is what the Executive threatens on the appointment of head teachers. The Executive is failing parents, who expect to be involved in their children's education. Far from reforming existing legislation, it will repeal the 1988 act and dilute parents' rights in the name of offering more flexible participation.

Mr Swinney: I take Lord James back to his point about dumbing down educational attainment to satisfy the targets of Government front benchers. Who is responsible for the dumbing down? I take it that he is accusing teachers or the Scottish Qualifications Authority.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Mr John Swinney is incorrect. The Executive is responsible for the Scottish education system. If that system does not measure up to the required standards, we are entitled to hold the Executive to account. John Swinney has not shrunk from doing that in the past. We would ensure that parents retained their statutory rights regarding the appointment of head teachers and deputy head teachers.

The Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 contained a presumption in favour of mainstreaming pupils with special educational needs. We want to do away with that presumption, because we believe that the introduction to mainstream schools of children with severe behavioural difficulties and autistic spectrum disorders is not always the best solution for the children concerned. We would like the case of each child to be weighed on its merits.

Under our proposals, state funds would follow the pupil to any school of the parents' choosing, with a premium for children with special educational needs. As I have said, we would end the presumption in favour of mainstreaming.

Mr Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): Will the member give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have only a few more moments and would like to finish by making a couple of key points.

Under the proposals that we have made, state funds would follow the pupil, so that any parent would be able to choose to send their son or

daughter to an independently run school. Each pupil would bring with them £5,058 per annum, to which the school or charitable body could add a bursary or scholarship.

Peter Peacock: Will the member give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I would like to develop my theme.

Loretto School, for example, helps 106 of the 274 pupils in the senior school. Merchiston Castle School helps 199 pupils and Robert Gordon's College in Aberdeen helps 200 of its 1,000 secondary pupils. Of the large Edinburgh day schools, both George Watson's College and George Heriot's School help well over 10 per cent of their senior pupils. Instead of considering withdrawal of charitable status from independent schools, we would give greater autonomy and charitable status to all state schools.

Peter Peacock: Will the member give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will do so after I have finished making my point.

Our proposals would mean that state schools would be able to enjoy many of the benefits that are currently reserved to the independent sector. Specifically, all schools should have the incentive to tap into the vast network of former pupils and the wider community as a means of raising funds.

Peter Peacock: I would like Lord James Douglas-Hamilton to clarify two points. First, I understand that the Conservatives' policy is to allow the average cost of a child's education to follow them to the school of their choice. What happens when the cost of education at that school is above the average, which is the case in many parts of Scotland? Would the parents have to top up the funds from their own money? Secondly, will the member be precise about whether he is saying that the cash that the Conservatives would take from the state system could be used to subsidise current fees in the private sector?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: On top-up fees, it is clear that those who are currently able to afford private education already have choice. Our scheme is intended to give choice to those who do not currently have it. Under our proposals, parents would be free to send their children to private schools, provided that the fees were not more than the per capita funding element. As I mentioned earlier, private schools can and do offer full bursaries to many students. It would be possible for them to redistribute those funds to allow more pupils access to the school. Although parents would not be allowed to top up school fees from their funds, there is no reason why a philanthropic individual or charity could not establish a benevolent fund to which children could apply to facilitate access to a private school.

We want to widen opportunity. The minister constantly addresses me as if I were a member of the Government, so I say to him that before we as an Administration would introduce a bill to Parliament, we would want to consult the people fully on the details. The funds would follow the pupil and we would take into account the kind of point that the minister has just made.

We believe that reform is needed to restore Scotland's education system and that there is a need for more diverse schooling provision. By ending the monopoly of provision, devolving financial and budgetary control to schools and allowing parents, community groups and companies to start up new state-funded schools, we can drive up standards and ensure that all children are allowed to fulfil their potential.

I move,

That the Parliament acknowledges that, as a result of the current government's centralising agenda and top-down approach, education in Scotland is characterised by low levels of attainment, alarming levels of indiscipline in too many of our schools, inadequate vocational provision and over-regulation; believes that developing a system of independently-managed but publicly-funded schools will reduce inequality by giving all parents a choice of school for their children; believes that, as well as supporting alternatives to exclusion, headteachers should have the right in statute to exclude violent and disruptive pupils permanently; opposes the repeal of the School Boards Act 1988 and believes that parents should retain their statutory rights regarding the appointment of headteachers and deputy headteachers; supports the retention of charitable status for independent schools and the extension of this status to all schools that wish it; believes that schools for children with special educational needs are vital to ensure that all are catered for and should be maintained where there is a demand, and notes that the direct funding of schools by the Scottish Executive on a per capita basis will create competition, drive up standards and benefit the council tax payer.

09:44

The Minister for Education and Young People (Peter Peacock): I have been looking forward to this debate immensely and so far my expectations of it have been met in full. I expected to hear nonsense from the Tories, and we have heard absolute nonsense from them this morning in Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's speech.

What an extraordinary nerve the Tories have to come to the Parliament to lecture us about improving standards in Scottish education. They may chuckle, but they are the party that during the 18 dark, awful, long years in which they were in charge of Scottish education brought Scottish education to its knees. They are the party that failed to invest in Scottish education. When they left office in 1997, they left crumbling schools the length and breadth of Scotland, lower pupil attainment, larger class sizes than we have today and demoralised staff in every school in

Scotland—unlike today. There was no universal early years provision—unlike today. The Tories left a cluttered curriculum with which teachers could not cope and with which we are now contending. They left colleges collapsing and almost bankrupt the length and breadth of Scotland.

Miss Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (Con): Will the minister explain why our universities increasingly have to deploy precious resource to provide remedial instruction to supposedly qualified and educated undergraduate students?

Peter Peacock: The students to which the member refers went to school when the Tories were in office—that is when they started primary school. The member has made my point exactly. The students who are now entering university went to school when the Tories were in charge.

What an absolute nerve the Tories have to talk to us about standards in education, indiscipline and inadequate vocational options. When they were in office, they did nothing about any of those issues and left the situation worse than it was when they arrived. If they ever get the chance to be in Government again, they will make the situation worse again. People should never forget that. As we heard this morning, if they are elected, the Tories plan to carry out a major onslaught on everything that we value in order to disable Scottish education.

The Tories' 18-year legacy was not just one of neglect. Of course, there was neglect of education, but what they did was worse than that: it was the purposeful, wilful running down of our state education system. They plan to do that again if they are given the chance.

First, they will abolish local education authorities, which run our schools and give strength and add value to the system. Secondly, they plan massive cuts in education spending, which Lord James Douglas-Hamilton did not mention. I refer to the £600 million that David McLetchie has promised already and the £35 billion-worth of cuts that Michael Howard is planning across the public sector. They cannot take that kind of money out of the education system and public services and expect to see improving standards. Under the Tories, there would be no extra teachers, support staff or new schools. The motion that we are debating today makes no reference to investment, because the Conservatives do not plan any investment.

Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con): Will the minister substantiate his claim that the Conservatives plan to make cuts of £600 million? Will he bring to the chamber and place in the parliamentary library the evidence to back it up, or will he withdraw it? He knows that the claim

cannot be substantiated. Every time he has been challenged to substantiate it, he has not been able to do so. He simply continues to repeat the accusation, without offering any basis for it in fact.

Peter Peacock: Brian Monteith needs to pay more attention to what his leader says. Just a few months ago in the chamber, I showed him the leaflet that states that there will be cuts of £600 million. I have a number of other quotes from the Conservative leader that make the same point. I fully intend to make those public over the coming weeks, as the matter becomes even more topical and we move into certain events.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will the minister give way?

Peter Peacock: I need to make some progress.

The Tories would take us back to the bad old days of cuts and demoralised staff. Members should be under no illusions—what they are about has a clear purpose and is not the result of neglect or accident. They want to undermine state education, because they are against comprehensive schools. Indeed, recently David McLetchie challenged Jack McConnell on when he would abolish the comprehensive system. The Tories want to disinvest from our schools. They want to cause dissatisfaction by lowering standards in them to force people to opt out of the state system and to create the independent network that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has described. The Tories' clear purpose is to end state education. They want to retain the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 so that, when they abolish local authorities, they can force parents to take over and run schools, just as they tried to do when they were in office before. Parents rejected that option when they had the chance.

The Tories have not said much today about the voucher-type system that they plan to introduce. The international evidence on voucher systems, the choice that the Tories propose, does not sustain the arguments that they make. Members should look at New York, Washington and Dayton for evidence of what happens under such systems. Overall standards do not rise. The majority of parents do not participate in such systems because they want a decent local school that the state has invested in where their kids can be educated. The Tories want to mimic what has been going on in Sweden by creating small, elite schools for the few—let us be clear about that. They want to run down state schools to force people to move into their market system, which only the more socially mobile will be able to take advantage of. There would be choice for the few and chaos for the many.

It is interesting that the Tories promote the Swedish system, which lags behind Scotland on

performance. Why do they not promote the system in neighbouring Finland, which is undoubtedly the most successful education system in the world? I will tell members why: it is for the ideological reason that the Finnish system is a comprehensive system, unlike the system that the Tories are trying to promote in Scotland. The comprehensive system breeds success throughout the world.

The Tory recipe for the future is clear: massive cuts in spending; run-down state schools; undermining of the state system; choice for the few; and chaos for the many.

Tommy Sheridan (Glasgow) (SSP): Will the minister give way on that point?

Peter Peacock: I tell Tommy Sheridan with great respect that I would rather not because I want to keep pasting the Tories for a while longer if I can.

The Tories also have the gall to mention levels of attainment—they have an absolute nerve to do so—as if standards were lower today than they were when they were in office. The opposite is the case. Part of the Tories' plan is to talk down state schools, to try to undermine the system and morale and to paint a wholly false picture of what happened. Scotland is one of the top-performing nations in the world in education and all the objective evidence shows that. In the recent programme for international student assessment—PISA—study, only three countries outperformed Scotland in any significant way, and Sweden does not happen to be one of them.

We have seen steady improvement in our higher and standard grade passes. Under the Tories, just under 70 per cent of 5 to 14 pupils reached required levels in test results. Now almost 80 per cent reach required levels and, since the Tories left office, the average increase across the board has been 9 per cent. In English writing in secondary 2, the level is up by 14 percentage points; in English reading in S2, it is up by 20 per cent; and in maths in S2, it is up by 17 percentage points since the Tories left office. We all have a duty to ensure that attainment never goes backwards, and the only way in which that would happen would be if the Tories returned to office.

I admit that Lord James seemed to make an honest attempt to get more balance into what he said today, but the Tories misrepresent schools on indiscipline. Serious problems of indiscipline exist, but our schools are not riot zones as the Tories like to paint them. The system is not in chaos and total meltdown. As John Swinney mentioned, head teachers have not lost control of their schools and teachers have not lost control of their classrooms.

The Tories' record on indiscipline was truly abysmal. It was the Tories who gave rights to

rowdy pupils in their Education Act 1980. It was the Tories who spent not a brass farthing on supporting teachers—nothing on staged intervention, nothing on restorative practices, nothing on the pupil support bases that they now argue for and nothing on in-service training or continuing professional development. What is worse, the Tories tried to sweep the evidence of indiscipline under the carpet. It was the Tories who refused to fund the study of teacher opinion on indiscipline in the mid-1990s and left it to the teachers unions instead. We have rectified that by picking up the task. The Tories made a blatant attempt to hide the facts from themselves.

We will not do what they did. We will deal with the indiscipline problems in our schools and we are already doing so. We regularly develop policy, survey teacher opinion and experience and employ extra support staff, who the Tories would cut if they got the chance.

Where the Tories failed Scottish education over so many years, the Executive is investing in and strengthening Scottish education. There are better pupil-to-teacher ratios, smaller class sizes, more teachers in training than ever before, the biggest school building programme in Europe, choice in what pupils study—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does the minister accept that the Tories are not going to cut a single penny from education, are not going to cut £600 million and have made it absolutely clear that we support direct funding of schools? That has been made clear to the minister repeatedly. Does he accept that, however often he repeats a blatant falsehood, the truth will out?

Peter Peacock: I would love to be able to believe Lord James. I genuinely believe that he tries to be an honourable man at all times. However, I tell him that his party leader has made it clear that he would take £600 million out of our planned spending, which we will commit to extra teachers and extra support staff, and out of the spending that we have already committed to new schools. Those are the kinds of cuts that the Tories would make and their record is clear to see. When they had the chance, they did not invest in Scottish education; they cut, cut and cut again and demoralised the whole system.

That is not what we will do. As I said, we will keep investing in the biggest building programme in Europe and we will provide more choice for our pupils about what to study, when to study it and when to sit exams. We will provide the new vocational options to which Lord James is a latter-day convert—we are doing that now; we do not need the Tories to do it. Those are the measures that people are getting from this Executive through the investments that we are making, and they are in stark contrast to what the Tories offer, which is

massive cuts, choice for the few and chaos for the many.

Since the sun started shining on Scottish education again in 1997, it has had the warmth that it required to start growing and flowering to serve our people well. We must never allow Scottish education to be plunged back into the darkness that the Tories would bring if they were ever elected to office. That is why the Parliament should support our amendment. The Scottish people will do the right thing in the weeks to come.

I move amendment S2M-2597.3, to leave out from "acknowledges" to end and insert:

"recognises the dedication of teachers and support staff in Scotland's schools to achieving excellent outcomes for the young people of Scotland; supports the Scottish Executive's agenda for the most comprehensive modernisation programme in Scottish schools for a generation, as described in Ambitious, Excellent Schools; acknowledges the Executive's commitment to building on the investment and successes in education over recent years; welcomes plans to bring a transformation in ambition and achievement through higher expectations for schools and school leadership, and recognises greater freedom for teachers and schools, better parental involvement and choice for pupils, increased and further enhancement of school/college partnerships to extend learning opportunities for pupils and better support for learning so that the individual needs of young people can be better met through tough, intelligent accountabilities to drive improvement."

09:56

Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP): Having watched the Scottish people defeat the policy of forcing schools to opt out of the system in the 1990s, the Tories now seem to want individual pupils to opt out of the school system. The Tories failed to get schools to opt out, so now they are trying to make individual children do so. If at first a Tory in Scotland cannot succeed, they should just give up.

Whom are the Scottish people most likely to believe about the figures for the proposed Tory cuts—the honourable Lord James Douglas-Hamilton or Hatchet Howard? Hatchet Howard was a minister in the Tory heyday of the 1990s, when 30,000 people protested on the streets of Edinburgh about Tory education policies. The Tories brought our teachers within touching distance of industrial action, which was only averted by the Scottish Parliament and the McCrone settlement.

The Tories left the fabric of our schools in disrepair because "back to basics" never meant the basics of school buildings. Labour and the Liberal Democrats have addressed the fabric of our buildings, but they have mortgaged our children's futures to the hilt with the financial millstone of dangerously expensive public-private partnerships.

The Tories want market choice in education. The SNP rejects on principle a free market in education. The idea of using children with special needs as some kind of commodity to be traded at a premium in an education marketplace is absolutely disgraceful.

Mr Monteith: The member is criticising the Swedish model of per capita funding in schools. Will she tell me the difference between that proposal and the one that she supported just last week for per capita funding of children in early-years education?

Fiona Hyslop: I believe in a comprehensive system of places for three-year-olds based on the system used in the Scandinavian countries but not on the free-market operations that the Tories propose. I believe in a comprehensive, universal system that provides free education and, where possible, child care for all. That is a genuine option and opportunity that the Tories would deny young families in Scotland.

The new Tories down south—by that, I mean the Labour Party—have adopted the choice agenda. We have to address the competition agenda, but Scotland is not England. It is not a country of large conurbations and small villages. By and large, Scotland is a country of large county towns with one, or perhaps two, local schools in the area.

Even in Perth, which I visited yesterday with the Education Committee, there are only four secondary schools. Even if we were sold on the free market of the Tories' so-called choice agenda, which we certainly are not, that system could not apply to Scotland in practice. Parents want their children to get the best education possible and to reach their full potential at school. The Tories want parents to be detached from schools; they see them as consumers with purchasing power rather than as part of the wider school community. The Tories would have parents shopping for schools when most hard-pressed families want to have confidence in their local school and do not want to worry about whether they have made the right choice.

The wider school community needs to be addressed. The sense of ownership and belonging among parents is not as strong as it might be. I acknowledge the Government's efforts in relation to its proposed legislation on school boards reform, but I appeal to the Government not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Statutory parental powers must remain, in whatever format the Government ultimately proposes in its bill.

If pupils and parents are to have a sense of the school community, there must be a shared understanding of what the school and the education that it provides are for. I fear that the idea of the purpose of education has been lost in

the current education generation. National priorities in education exist in statute and the minister talks about them, but does the nation know about them? What happened to the great education debate? It turned into a monologue in Victoria Quay. If we want to achieve a stimulating, motivated education system in Scotland, we need a shared understanding of that vision, which requires leadership from Government. That is critical. We want dialogue, not drift; we want focus, not a frenzy of initiatives. I do not know how some teachers have the time to think, let alone teach, after they have filled in the forms for the man in the ministry.

Above all, education policy must be shaped and driven in Scotland for Scotland. It must not be dictated by an English agenda and a Government whose priorities must always be determined for the bulk of the population that lives in England and whose votes decide the future Government of the British state. The greater good of the greater English interest does not serve Scottish education and the greater good of the greater English electorate does not serve Scottish education. We need a Scottish vision, not a hand-me-down from a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer whose contribution to the education debate in Scotland is to throw down the bawbees. Blair and Brown represent two sides of the same Westminster-hewn coin. The Westminster Government holds the purse strings.

The SNP amendment mentions pupils' need for "sufficient time and attention". Smaller class sizes have been SNP policy for many years. The Executive finally took up the policy, but it did so haphazardly and it knew that it could not meet its own target. Class sizes in English and maths for S1 and S2 were to be reduced to 20 pupils, but the minister has already dumped that target. He was bailed out by head teachers, who knew that the target was not deliverable when it was set.

Peter Peacock: I am happy to correct Fiona Hyslop on that point. First, we have not dumped the target. Secondly, we will meet the target and are well on the way to doing so.

Fiona Hyslop: If the minister has not dumped the target and will meet it, why did he tell us that he listened to head teachers and would offer more flexibility because he would not meet the target? He should reflect on the comments that he made. We want more flexibility, but the Executive should have listened to head teachers when it reduced class sizes in primary schools from 32 to 30 pupils and introduced composite classes throughout Scotland, to the detriment of education for children in their early years. In the current context, the Executive should reflect on its commitments: either it has a target or it does not have one.

We should consider the vision of the school in the community. There are proposals for community schools in which pupils would receive social and health support, but perhaps those proposals ignore the role of the school in the wider community. We must support schools in the community and there must be a presumption against the closure of rural schools.

As our amendment says, schools should provide a peaceful environment. At First Minister's question time on 20 January, I raised the serious issue of the proposal to end the publication of annual indiscipline statistics and to replace them with a three-yearly survey. A couple of weeks later, the Conservatives woke up, smelled the coffee and realised that the matter should be taken up—I applaud them for doing so. If we regard indiscipline as a serious issue, it is important that regular statistics be produced so that there can be accountability. The production of statistics every three years is not good enough. Indiscipline is to do with poor behaviour and lack of motivation and I am glad that the Education Committee is addressing the issue.

We must reflect on the inclusion agenda. I certainly do not blame children who have social, emotional or behavioural needs, but if support is not provided we grind down teachers' spirits and strip from pupils the time and attention that they need. In 2003, I warned that that could happen and, in September of that year, in a debate on an Executive motion on better behaviour, the Parliament agreed to an SNP amendment that called for more resources. Additional support for learning requires far greater resources than are available just now and I warn the minister that the code of practice relating to the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 will probably be more important than much of the primary legislation that the Parliament is currently considering. I appeal to the Presiding Officer to ensure that the statutory instrument that will introduce the code of practice is given the time and attention in Parliament that it needs. That is essential.

The Headteachers Association of Scotland has commented on funding and expenses in relation to initiatives. Similar schools in different parts of the country receive different levels of resources and I welcome the minister's investigation of that matter. Wendy Alexander and I asked for such an investigation when the Education Committee considered the budget in 2003. We must examine the role of education authorities and consider local accountability. Is the function of education authorities the duplication and regurgitation of guidance from the Executive or can they provide a furnace in which new ideas can be forged before being piloted and shared? We must examine those issues properly.

The Executive should do three things—four, if we include ignoring the Tories, although, to be fair, I should add that we live in a democracy and the Tories have the right to make their case. First, there should be a serious, deliverable class-size reduction policy. Secondly, there should be a real examination of how resources reach the chalkface and of local authorities' involvement. Thirdly, there should be an assessment of how to make social inclusion work, instead of hindering the progress of the mainstreaming policy.

We should acknowledge and celebrate the hard work, dedication, professionalism and enthusiasm of the thousands of teachers in Scotland who help to shape and inspire our children. If learning is the liberation of the mind, teachers are our freedom fighters.

I move amendment S2M-2597.1, to leave out from "acknowledges" to end and insert:

"recognises the efforts of teachers to deliver a quality education for pupils in increasingly challenging circumstances, the potential of Scotland's pupils to succeed and the need for national government resources, which directly impact on the classroom experience, to provide sufficient time and attention for pupils from teachers in a peaceful, stimulating environment with a relevant, flexible curriculum for them to achieve that potential, and calls on the Scottish Executive to, in particular, develop policies to cut class sizes, to examine the plethora of initiatives and complexity of competitively bid-for funding streams and to reassess the impact of, and support given to, its social inclusion and mainstreaming agenda to ensure that all children can get the most out of their time in school education."

The Presiding Officer: Before I call Mr Sheridan, I should say that a number of members have contacted me about the temperature in the chamber, which is unacceptably high for a March morning in Scotland. The matter is being urgently dealt with by facilities management and I am told that there should be some relief shortly.

10:06

Tommy Sheridan (Glasgow) (SSP): On a March morning that begins with a Tory debate on education, we must expect the heat to rise, given all the hot air that emanates. The debate seems to be about giving the Tory party a kicking—sometimes I like to be different, but sometimes it is good to be part of the crowd.

The question of class pervades the whole debate. It was interesting that James Douglas-Hamilton said that the Tories would not abolish charitable status for independent schools but develop the approach and make it flourish. In other words, he supports the continued public subsidy of the private school sector through charitable status. Class pervades the debate because Lord James never mentioned the Tories' refusal, during their 18 years in government, to

apply the same principle to Scotland's mines, shipyards and steel yards. When those manufacturing and essential concerns required subsidies, the Tories' class interests were clear.

Mr Monteith: Mr Sheridan classifies charitable status for independent schools as a "subsidy". Does he accept that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton proposed that we extend that subsidy by giving state schools charitable status? Surely he would welcome such a move and will join me in agreeing with Lord James.

Tommy Sheridan: The only matter on which I agree with Brian Monteith and James Douglas-Hamilton is the argument that the standard and quality of education that money can buy in this country should be available to every child in this country as of right.

The motion sets out an elitist vision of education, which means that Fettes College can have classes of 18 pupils, George Watson's College can have classes of 20 pupils and St Serf's School can have classes of 10 pupils. At Fettes, 99 per cent of pupils pass five or more standard grades at grade 4 or above. At George Watson's, the figure is 98 per cent and, at St Serf's, the figure is 100 per cent. A common feature of the educational attainment successes in the independent schools sector is small class sizes, which the state schools sector should also have. I do not want parents who cherish and love their children dearly to feel that they are letting their kids down unless they make financial sacrifices to send their kids to an educational environment where they can benefit from a wide choice in the curriculum and from class sizes of a maximum of 20 and sometimes as low as 10. In an independent Scotland, our vision would be to offer those benefits to every school pupil. We should not have an exclusive school system that is based on the size of a child's father's wallet or the size of a child's mother's purse. For that reason, the Tory vision for education should be rejected 100 per cent. It is an elitist, exclusive and expensive vision.

Class pervades the debate not only in relation to class division but in relation to class sizes. Class division is at the very heart of the problem. The other day, I spoke to a teacher of 20 years' standing who recalled a tutorial 20 years ago at which the tutor showed, on an overhead projector, a slide of Glasgow and the surrounding parts of Strathclyde. The slide showed colour-coded but unnamed secondary schools and the tutor said that the brighter the colour, the greater the educational attainment of the school. The tutor then slapped another slide on the projector. That slide was produced not by the Scottish Office, but by the local estate agents. It showed that the more expensive the homes in an area, the greater the educational attainment of the schools. In other

words, the single biggest determinant of educational attainment in this country is still income and class. That is why the overriding aim of any Government that wants to improve educational standards and to close the gap between the educational attainment of middle-class kids and working-class kids must be the redistribution of wealth to close the wealth gap.

I have to have a kick at the new Tories rather than the old Tories. Unfortunately, in 2005, the wealth gap is growing. It is now larger than it was even in the dark days of the old Tories. While the wealth gap grows, the educational attainment gap will also grow.

The Scottish Socialist Party's amendment stresses that the primary aim of our education policy is to deliver uniformly smaller class sizes, especially in the early years. All studies show that the single biggest improvement in educational attainment can result from smaller class sizes in the early years of education. However, that improvement should be made across the educational experience of all Scotland's pupils.

Anyone here who has had the benefit of a university education will, I am sure, testify that one of the beauties of that education was the tutorial system, in which, in smaller groups, we could investigate subjects and feel confident enough to ask questions. That is the type of environment that we have to create in our schools.

When I visit schools where the classes have 25, 30 and sometimes even more pupils, I do not envy the task of teachers. On the one hand they have to educate; on the other hand they have to control. It is difficult to do both at once. That is why we have to aim as high as possible. We have to invest as much of our national wealth as possible to ensure that we have smaller class sizes in primary and secondary schools.

Problems in society—whether it be misbehaviour at school, vandalism or a general lack of hope—can be tackled if we start improving things for people at school age and if we deliver smaller class sizes. The comprehensive education system should be defended, but it has to be expanded and improved. The way to do that is to deliver smaller class sizes for all.

I move amendment S2M-2597.2, to leave out from "acknowledges" to end and insert:

"fully endorses a comprehensive education system based on equality of opportunity for all from the nursery sector through to secondary education and beyond; supports a reduction in class sizes to no more than 20 or, indeed, less, along with suitably-qualified support teachers with expertise in working alongside classroom teachers to support pupils with special educational needs and social, emotional and behavioural difficulties, and recognises that early intervention in early years, learning styles and developing emotional intelligence are key areas that require

different approaches to learning and teaching, alongside flexibility to ensure that all children and young people reach their potential."

10:15

Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD): I am grateful to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and the Conservatives for calling this debate, which gives us the opportunity to quash some myths and to take a considered view of the state of the education system in Scotland today.

As many members have suggested, education is the single largest force for good in our society. Accordingly, the many issues that it gives rise to are often the subject of intense political debate. It is right that, as the convener of the Parliament's Education Committee, I should say at the outset that our schools—our teachers, our janitors and the various other committed members of staff—get a great deal right. In consequence, they produce a lot of bright, ambitious, socially conscious and nice young people who are a credit to their teachers, their parents and themselves. Schools operate in society. They cannot always repair the damage that is done by parental neglect, by fractured communities or by antisocial attitudes.

As Fiona Hyslop said, she, Lord James and I—together with other members of the Education Committee—visited Perth yesterday, where we saw the smart young people project, which has been set up by schools in Perth and Kinross in association with the YMCA to motivate young people who are apathetic towards or turned off by school. For me, that was a truly inspiring experience. We heard about the newly established pupil-led student council at Perth Grammar School. Despite its name, the school contains a diverse social mix in the city of Perth. We heard about peer counselling, in which older students volunteer to help younger ones with problems. We met a dynamic and innovative pupil-support worker with skills in counselling, family therapy and alternative therapies.

We saw the success of the smart young people project, which claimed to have had only one failure with some challenging young people among the several hundred who had been through the programme. I can think of few better uses of the £34 million funding that the minister recently announced to help with discipline in schools than to provide more pupil-support workers and to provide steady funding for more places on schemes such as the smart young people project. I know, and Lord James knows, that that kind of picture—inspirational, optimistic, realistic and making the most of our young people—is not unique to Perth but can be found with innumerable variations across the bulk of Scottish schools.

In the motion, the Conservatives make a number of propositions. Some are more meritorious than

others, but they have one thing in common: they are all on the fringe of the issue. They are not, as Lord James would have us believe, uplifting drivers of public policy; they are whimpers off-stage from a party that had 18 years in which to do those things had it wished to. As the minister pointed out, the Conservatives presided over what was probably the historic low point of the Scottish education system. Neglect, demoralisation and lack of leadership—that was the sorry legacy of the Conservative years.

Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con): Will the member take this opportunity to address the proposals of Aberdeenshire Council—which is controlled by Liberal Democrats—to close prestigious special needs schools such as St Andrew's School in Inverurie and Carronhill special school in Stonehaven?

Robert Brown: No, I will not. This is a national debate and I do not have the details of the particular cases that the member mentions.

Many issues remain to be discussed. We could have had a useful debate on the low-level indiscipline in classes that wears teachers down. We have not had such a debate. We could have had a debate on the relative merits of using the improved and improving teacher to pupil ratios to cut class sizes generally or on a targeted basis. Oddly, some evidence has shown that cutting class sizes benefits schools in more popular areas, where the classes are full, rather than schools in more deprived areas where the classes are half full and where, arguably, need is greater.

But no—the Conservatives offer us a spurious and unachievable choice. Local authority placement figures for 2003-04 were published on Tuesday. Almost a quarter of all children were the subject of placing requests, the vast majority of which were granted. The Tories would apparently target money to ensure that everyone went to their requested school. However, because the schools in question are full—whether in the public or private sector—the Tory plan can only mean building huts or extensions to accommodate the extra children. Fiona Hyslop made a good point about the single-town situation that applies across most of Scotland. In many places, there is no room for school extensions. The result would be the necessity of spending even more money on bricks and mortar, beyond our existing programme, while creating empty classrooms elsewhere. Does that really improve education? Is there the remotest basis for saying that that is good value for money? What on earth has that to do with improving attainment?

The Tories have an irrelevant obsession with structure and arcane funding mechanisms. The Liberal Democrats believe that the education system should be grounded in good and improving

local schools, linked to and part of local communities. Of course people should have the freedom to send their children to private schools, but what counts for most children are the opportunities offered by education in the state sector.

I conclude by setting out the alternatives on offer on some key issues. On discipline in schools, the Liberal Democrat and Labour coalition provides substantial funding for more suitable staff to give the specialist attention to young people who have issues. Such pupils constitute a tenth of students in the Perth school that the Education Committee visited. The Tories exclude such pupils and fling them out—with no follow-up—on the street, where they are likely to start or to continue a career of crime and nuisance. That is the Tory solution to discipline. On attainment, we invest in leadership development, in developing inspiring teachers, in the range of participative innovations that the committee saw in Perth, in targeted reductions in class sizes and in remotivating young people. The Tories are exercised about who appoints deputy head teachers. On vocational provision, the Tories moan but offer nothing at all.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will the member take an intervention?

Robert Brown: I am sorry, but I do not have time to take further interventions.

The Liberal Democrats, through the Scottish Executive, give young people new options to attend college to do a wider range of vocational courses in a more adult environment within the overall school framework. The Executive has surpassed its targets for modern apprenticeships two years ahead of time.

The Liberal Democrats demand quality for all, not a spurious and unworkable choice for the few. Education is and should be about encouraging, inspiring and motivating our young citizens to fulfil their potential. It should be about opportunity, ambition, leadership and self-belief.

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I want clarification. Robert Brown introduced himself as the convener of the Education Committee and his speech was broad to begin with. However, he is now talking about Executive policy. In what capacity is he speaking?

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman): Mr Brown is speaking in his capacity as the convener of the Education Committee, if that is what he said. I was not here at the beginning of his speech.

Robert Brown: Mr Brown is speaking as an elected MSP for the Liberal Democrats in Glasgow, who happens also to be the convener of

the Education Committee. It is reasonably clear that, in today's debate, I have been speaking primarily as Liberal Democrat spokesman on education.

If I may, I will finish my peroration. I had thought that I was giving the chamber reasonable stuff. I was talking about opportunity, ambition, leadership and self-belief. I was also talking about the pride of parents and the achievements of young people and about liberty in the widest possible sense. Instead of all that, the Conservatives have today offered us a dish of cold kale: uninspiring, fearful, obsessed with structure and out of touch—a sort of Alf Garnett view of education. I urge the chamber to have nothing to do with it.

10:23

Dr Elaine Murray (Dumfries) (Lab): The motion is long and rambling, so I intend to focus on the Tories' proposals on parental choice and publicly funded independent schools. My apologies to the Scottish National Party and the Scottish Socialist Party if I do not address their amendments, but, as this is a Tory debate, I particularly want to consider the Tories' suggestions.

I have looked at the Tory party policy document "Action on Education", which is available on the website of the United Kingdom Tories—the UK Tory leader has made it clear that the only way is Howard's way. The document promises parents of all school-age children the right to choose.

Mr Monteith: Will the member take an intervention?

Dr Murray: No, I will not take an intervention at the moment.

"Action on Education" says that parents will be able to apply to any state-funded school. It says that parents will be able to send their child to any independent school that offers a "good" education for the cost of a place at a state-funded school and that those independent schools will not be allowed to charge fees. It also says that funding will follow the pupil.

I have a few questions on those proposals, which I hope Tory members will answer in their contributions. First, how much money will follow each pupil? The Scottish average is £3,500 a year to educate a primary school pupil and £5,000 to educate a secondary school pupil, but figures released in January show that that varies significantly between local authorities. In Shetland, for example, it costs £5,800 to educate a primary pupil and £9,500 to educate a secondary pupil. In Glasgow, the figures are, respectively, £4,200 and £5,800. In Dumfries and Galloway, which is either worryingly cheap or particularly efficient, the figures are £3,000 and £4,500. However, within

those local authorities there are significant variations between individual schools. In small rural schools, which usually cost much more per pupil, the figures can be two or three times the local authority average.

If those schools were to be independently managed but publicly funded, how would the funds be allocated? Would they be based on the Scottish average? Would they be based on the local authority average? Alternatively, would the funds be the actual cost of sending a pupil to that school? If the answer is either of the last two, what funding will follow the pupil: the cost of the education that they were receiving or the cost of the education that they will receive? I ask the self-styled champions of rural Scotland what the effects of their education policy will be on small, rural primary schools.

Mr Monteith: Would the member like an answer to that?

Dr Murray: Mr Monteith can answer in his contribution. I want to make progress.

How feasible is the Tories' choice in rural communities? I was in Annan Academy on Monday morning, seeing the sci-fun programme. Annan Academy is a good school, but let us assume that a parent wanted to send their child to another school. Where could the child go? The nearest choices would be Lockerbie, which is 13 miles away; Dumfries, which is 16 miles away; Carlisle, which is 18 miles away; Langholm, which is 23 miles away; or Moffat, which is 29 miles away. Who will be responsible for school transport to exercise that choice? That question applies in urban areas, too. I suspect that the third of Edinburgh parents who ship their children to schools outside their local area are contributing fairly significantly to congestion in the city.

Let us consider the parents who want to send their children to independent schools—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will the member take an intervention?

Dr Murray: No, I want to make progress. I still have quite a bit to say.

Let us consider the independent sector in Edinburgh. St Serf's School, which Tommy Sheridan mentioned, costs £4,000 for a primary child and £4,600 for a secondary child—not terribly expensive. Erskine Stewart's Melville schools—when I went to Mary Erskine School, it was still a direct grant school—are now much more expensive: at primary 7 level they cost £6,200 and at secondary level they cost £7,600. At Fettes, which has a well-known former pupil, primary costs £9,300 and secondary costs £14,000. I do not think that any of those schools will offer to take pupils for the cost of a state-funded place or that they will offer many bursaries.

Christine Grahame: Will the member take an intervention?

Dr Murray: Sorry, Christine, but I am still trying to make progress with my points.

Let us consider uptake and whether attainment is improved in the international comparisons where state funding follows pupils into the independent sector. Do children from low-income families benefit? What about Milwaukee and Cleveland in the United States, which have had voucher-based programmes for 15 years? Helen Ladd's testimony in the House of Representatives is that the programmes have resulted in no difference in achievement among students from the same socioeconomic background. Thirty per cent of students return to public education after initial experience of the independent sector and fewer than 7 per cent of those who are eligible bother to apply. Let us consider Chile, where the voucher system was introduced in 1980, under Thatcher's great friend, General Pinochet. There has been no improvement in achievement among students from lower-income backgrounds in private schools and 72 per cent of students from the lower half of income distribution remain within the public sector. The only people who benefit are the privileged.

Let us consider the Netherlands, where 70 per cent of pupils are in subsidised private schools but where there are extensive waiting lists for "better" schools, which have started to charge fees. The 30 per cent of pupils remaining in the public sector are from low-income families. Even in Sweden, where 800 independent schools have been created, the independent sector educates only 6 per cent of pupils.

Are colleagues thinking what I am thinking? When it comes to education policy, the Tories do not seem to have done their homework. Tory policies will not work for rural schools, which are more expensive to run. They will not offer parents in rural communities any real choice. They will not work for children from low-income families. They will not raise attainment. They will not offer parents the choice of the current independent sector. Zero out of five. In my book, that is a fail.

10:29

Richard Lochhead (North East Scotland) (SNP): I want to talk about some local issues in primary and secondary schools in North East Scotland. There are two main high-profile issues in the area at the moment: education and dentistry. I am delighted that we will be talking about dentistry later today. It is disappointing that the North East Scotland Lib Dems have not turned up for this debate, given that education is one of the biggest issues dominating MSPs' mailbags in the region.

The education issue in the north-east relates primarily to Aberdeenshire Council's recently published 21^st century school improvement programme, which is a mixed bag of proposals, one of which is to invest about £200 million in school infrastructure in Aberdeenshire in the next 10 or 15 years. Of course, that depends on when the Minister for Education and Young People notifies the council of the funding stream. I would be grateful if the minister could tell us before the end of the debate when the funding stream will be coming along. The education officials in Aberdeenshire Council say that everything is up in the air until the Government gives them an indication of the timescales.

Alex Johnstone: Is it not the case that if Richard Lochhead and I were Liberal Democrats representing North East Scotland, we would choose to be as far away from the chamber as possible during an education debate?

Richard Lochhead: Yes. If I were a Lib Dem MSP for North East Scotland, I would be highly embarrassed to take part in any debate on education, given the unpopularity of many of the proposals that are being made in the north-east. No one is suggesting that education provision should stand still, but we have to be careful about such provision in rural areas and about special needs provision.

One of the biggest issues, to which Alex Johnstone has alluded, relates to St Andrew's School in Inverurie, which has excellent special needs provision. It has an excellent reputation and is one of only seven schools in Scotland that are accredited by the National Autistic Society. A huge public campaign is being run because of the level of concern about its future. When Aberdeenshire Council announced its original proposals, the options were closure, closure or closure. Thankfully, the options now seem to have shifted to closing the school, upgrading it or having a new build. A recent survey of local parents found that 98 per cent wanted to rebuild the school or have it upgraded.

A number of MSPs visited the school a few weeks ago. We were totally taken aback by the staff's professionalism and dedication. No one is arguing that the status quo is an option; the school has to be upgraded or rebuilt. However, there is clearly concern among the parents about the proposal to establish two new stand-alone units—one co-located with a local primary school and the other co-located with Inverurie Academy. Parents think that there is a danger that the education provision for the children will be harmed if they are not kept together in one school in order to maintain the current ethos. We heard from the head teacher that the teachers come in over the holidays to create false walls for new classrooms

because the building is so antiquated and that they have turned broom cupboards into new rooms for the kids. That illustrates the challenge for our education provision in Scotland, particularly in relation to infrastructure.

There is a lot of public interest in the future of special needs schools in the north-east—not just St Andrew's School in Inverurie but Carronhill School in Stonehaven. A huge petition is circulating in the north-east and I urge the Minister for Education and Young People, Peter Peacock, to come to the area to visit those two schools and some of the other local primary schools. He should visit St Andrew's School in particular, which is a beacon of excellence in special needs education whose future we need to protect. I ask Peter Peacock to take that on board and to consider visiting the area soon.

Local managers in some of the secondary schools in Aberdeenshire, particularly the smaller rural schools, have expressed concern to me about the proposal to restructure management in the schools. The Government's objective is to have more flat management, more responsibility payments and faculties within secondaries. The changes will create differences not only between local authority areas but, in some cases, between secondary schools in the same local authority area. That is causing a lot of concern.

One of the issues with rural secondaries, which in most cases are smaller than urban secondaries, is the fact that the principal faculty teachers in urban schools will be paid more than the depute heads in rural schools. That creates an issue to do with the recruitment and retention of senior managers in rural schools. Why would a principal teacher want to apply for a depute head post in a rural school when they would get paid more for staying where they were? Likewise, why would someone in a rural school want to keep their post when they could apply for a higher-paid post in an urban school? We have to address those issues and I would be interested to hear the minister's comments on them.

On funding, I was interested to read the report by the Headteachers Association of Scotland, "Fair Funding to Schools", which was published a few days ago. It states:

"at neither school nor subject level is any consideration given to the level of resourcing allocated by the education authority to the school or by the school to the subject."

That relates to the comparisons between schools that the Government keeps using. It is important that when it compares secondary schools it takes into account the different levels of funding from each education authority; otherwise it will make unfair comparisons. I ask the minister to respond to that point before the end of the debate.

I turn finally to workforce issues. I support all the sentiments that Fiona Hyslop expressed in her speech. Stress continues to be a huge issue in our primary and secondary schools. I would like to know what the minister is doing to measure and treat it. Schools in the north-east are trying to recruit new teachers from Malta, because of the shortages in the area. That is not a long-term solution. We have to attract teachers in this country back into the classroom. That involves tackling discipline, but it also involves tackling stress, treating teachers and giving them a sense of self-worth and self-respect. I support the SNP amendment.

10:35

Mr Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con): Last month, a former maths teacher made a remarkable speech about Scottish education. In it he slammed left-wing education policies pursued by Labour councils, which he claimed had ruined two generations of schoolchildren. They had suffered as a result of a non-competitive culture and the move away from rewarding academic achievement. He said:

"Things like school award ceremonies became unfashionable ... School uniforms became unfashionable, criticising people for underachievement became unfashionable, not celebrating achievement became fashionable. ... We need to turn that culture round."

The speech was particularly remarkable because it came not from some Tory dominie put out to grass and mourning better days, but from the First Minister of Scotland, Jack McConnell. It is bizarre that Jack's Minister for Education and Young People, who is not here at the moment, still appears to support the system that his First Minister criticised. Peter Peacock continues to deplore the publication of school league tables, which give at least some indication of achievement in schools.

How are our schools ever again to reflect the qualities that, I presume, Jack McConnell remembers from his halcyon days at Arran High School and which I certainly remember from mine at Madras College in St Andrews under a Conservative Administration? Those were ordinary state schools to be proud of, as were Dunoon Grammar School, which produced politicians such as John Smith, Brian Wilson and George Robertson; Arbroath High School, which produced Michael Forsyth; and Kirkcaldy High School, where Gordon Brown went to school. I say to Peter Peacock, who I am afraid is still not here, that that includes Hawick High School, his alma mater, where my cousin spent many years heading up the music department and witnessed the disintegration of the system.

Conservatives have always believed that to empower and enrich the individual there must be

choice. That applies as much to choices in education as it does to choices in consumer goods and in the hospitals in which people are treated. We have heard a lot about the Executive's much-vaunted initiatives, targets, goals and aims, but beneath all the rhetoric is a chronically failed school system demanding change.

Everyone agrees that improving standards and raising levels of attainment in schools should be the priority for our education system. By allowing good schools to expand, with parents rather than local authorities controlling funding, Conservatives will ensure that poorer schools are given a clear incentive to raise the standards. The introduction of a degree of competition—that word that the First Minister was talking about—among schools means that the more successful will flourish, while the weaker will be encouraged to do better. By stopping the unjust postcode lottery for catchment areas, we will ensure that the most vulnerable people in our society are not relegated to less popular schools.

Robert Brown: I am curious to know how reducing funding for the so-called less successful schools will help them to improve standards.

Mr Brocklebank: Robert Brown has totally misunderstood what we are saying. The funding will follow the pupil and the parents, who can decide where they want it to go.

We also need to address the growing number of pupils whose persistent bad behaviour has a serious detrimental effect on others, one of the most worrying aspects of which is the increasing number of assaults on teachers and other pupils. I am proud that my alma mater, Madras College in St Andrews, still tops the league tables for Fife, despite having one of the largest school rolls in Scotland. However, according to newspaper reports and correspondence that I have received from concerned parents, there have been a growing number of cases of bullying as well as allegations of assault on at least one female member of staff. Although I welcome the additional funding to Fife Council to improve discipline in schools in Fife, extra investment is not the only answer. We have to give our teachers the backing that they need.

Scott Barrie (Dunfermline West) (Lab): To return to Mr Brocklebank's point about large schools, I distinctly remember that his first members' business debate in the Parliament was about the Madras College campus and the fact that Fife schools are in general rather large. How does that issue fit with the concept that more parents should be able to send their children to successful schools? Surely his point about the size of schools runs against the policy that he advocates.

Mr Brocklebank: Absolutely not. The main problem with the size of schools in Fife is directly attributable to the chaotic approach that Fife Council has taken for many years in not providing more secondary school buildings. The issue is still being addressed, because even though the council has had about 20 years to address it, it has failed to do so.

Teachers and pupils should not be the victims of violence as a result of the thoughtless actions of a few, which is why teachers must have the right to refuse to teach violent pupils. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton outlined, we propose introducing special units—second-chance learning centres—to educate such pupils until they return to mainstream education as reformed young people. We want teachers to do what they do best—teaching—so we must stop smothering them with bureaucracy. James Gillespie's High School in Edinburgh has received no fewer than 71 glossy publications on the curriculum, which run to approximately 3,500 pages. How are teachers to wade through those volumes and at the same time teach, which is what they are supposed to do?

Outside the classroom, the Executive's failure is even more palpable. According to a report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the amount of time that is devoted to physical education in Scottish schools is among the lowest in the world, which is not what Peter Peacock claimed in his league tables. Of the 29 nations that were surveyed, Scotland was 27^th—no wonder our rugby and soccer teams languish near the bottom of their attainment leagues.

The Executive has failed to get to grips with the education system in Scotland. It does not put teachers and pupils first and its initiatives, targets and goals and the raft of Orwellian speak that accompanies them do not deliver higher standards, better discipline, lower levels of truancy or less bureaucracy. On any report card, the judgment on Mr Peacock and the Executive would have to be, "Must do an awful lot better."

10:42

Mr Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): I will comment briefly on what Conservative members have said. I want to examine the word "choice". The word is sometimes related to the value of freedom, but we need to think about what it means. Does choice in education mean that people can choose to walk away from a school, with the funding following them, while leaving the poorer or less able pupils in what might become a sink school because the money has moved away with parents and children to schools that they perceive to be better? Do we have the right to choose to walk away from people

who are less able and less well off than we are? That is a profound question that we should continue to ask when we think about choice.

Mr Monteith: Will the member take an intervention?

Mr Stone: I will take an intervention if Mr Brian Monteith will answer that question.

Mr Monteith: I welcome the fact that Mr Stone has given way—I would try to answer members' questions, if they would let me intervene.

If pupils chose to go to a different school, the school that they left would have two opportunities to improve. First, the emigration might begin a move for new management in the school. Secondly, the smaller class sizes and improved teacher to pupil ratio would give teachers the chance to improve discipline.

Mr Stone: That is twisted logic. It is a fundamental point and a cardinal truth that the more able pupils bring on the less able pupils when they work together in a comprehensive system. A linked point is that a benefit of mainstreaming is that it prepares pupils for life after school. If pupils are kept entirely segregated, they can get a shock when they come out of school. There are of course cases in which pupils cannot be mainstreamed, but I am with Lord James Douglas-Hamilton when he says that there should be a strong presumption for mainstreaming.

In my remaining time, I will turn to the far north, setting aside general election big-time politics. Anyone who, like me, has put children through school or has served on an education committee, knows that education has improved hugely. In the past few years, my three children went to Tain Royal Academy, a state school in the Highlands, and I have no complaints—they were better taught than I was all those years ago. For example, there have been huge improvements in the teaching of modern studies, modern history and mathematics. However, that is not to say that everything is perfect. We have problems in the Highlands. If I was fly, I would stick those problems on the chairman of Highland Council's education, culture and sport committee, who is the SNP councillor Andy Anderson. However, that would be deeply unfair and wrong and a cheap point that would not wash.

Alex Johnstone: Why did the member say it, then?

Mr Stone: I said it because Richard Lochhead's attack on Lib Dem MSPs who are not here was out of order. That is an easy argument to make, but it is not true. I will not attack Andy Anderson, who is a quality chairman of education in Highland Council.

On the issue of teacher morale, in the Clasper building in Thurso High School in my constituency, the heat cannot be adjusted—it can be either switched off or switched on. If the heating is switched off, the pupils and staff freeze, but when it is on, they are too hot. All Highland list MSPs are aware of the problem. I do not know why it cannot be solved, but it is a challenge for Highland Council and the Executive.

Through discussions on the issue, the Minister for Education and Young People knows about the problem of recruiting teachers to some of the more remote schools in the Scottish Highlands, such as Thurso High School, Wick High School and Kinlochbervie High School. The minister and the Executive are attempting to address that issue. We have the same problem with supply teachers, who are hard to get in the area. Inducements are offered, but there is work still to be done. I do not say that everything is perfect—there has been improvement, but more needs to be done.

Finally, I turn to another Jamie—Jamie Oliver. I am sure that all members watched with great interest the television programmes about his experiments with school food. Last night, the programme linked improved attention in class to improved diet and food, which was profoundly interesting. I am sure that members from all parties acknowledge that link. I am pleased to applaud Andy Anderson and others in Highland Council for the initiatives that they have taken on school food. However, we can do much more on the issue. We need to buy quality local products, provide quality cooking and give more money and time to dinner ladies and other people who cook and serve food. I hate using this expression, but we need to make school food sexier for youngsters. As a result, the health of the nation and educational attainment would improve.

10:47

Dr Sylvia Jackson (Stirling) (Lab): I declare an interest: I am a member of the Educational Institute of Scotland.

The Conservative motion mentions

"the current government's centralising agenda",

which is a bit hypocritical. The Conservatives seem to forget the years of Michael Forsyth.

Mr Monteith: Never.

Dr Jackson: I know that some members do not.

Michael Forsyth tried to introduce a rigid five-to-14 programme and a national testing programme. However, with support from the teaching profession, the education establishment and parents, the worst excesses of the measures were stopped from moving north of the border. The

Conservatives should not waste their time lecturing members about a centralised agenda, given that they had such an agenda.

Mr Monteith: Does Sylvia Jackson concede that the five-to-14 initiative was, in part, a response to the problems that the First Minister has talked about and an attempt to bring Scottish education back to what parents wanted and away from the trendy reforms that bedevilled it in the 1970s and 1980s?

Dr Jackson: Mr Monteith shows his ignorance on education. There is no doubt that the education system in Scotland wanted a curricular review, but it did not want the rigidity that went with the five-to-14 proposals. Luckily, the proposals were adapted somewhat for Scotland. Also, the education system in Scotland did not want a national testing system. Mr Monteith should know that the system did not come into being here in the same form as it did down south and that, since then, it has improved. Again, that shows Mr Monteith's ignorance.

The EIS regards discipline as the biggest single problem that confronts schools today. It is a serious issue. No one doubts that and it has been one of the big issues in the chamber today. However, research shows that the big problem is not with the extremely serious incidents, which are quite rare, but with the persistent minor offences. Through its surveys, the EIS has shown that the main problem that teachers have is with the pupil who constantly makes a noise in the classroom, who disrupts the work of the class, who turns up late for class, who breaks class rules and who is eating or chewing in class. Those minor offences are what cause the problem.

Tommy Sheridan: Does Sylvia Jackson agree that the EIS has homed in on the class-size issue as being a solution not only to classroom discipline problems but to the question of how to improve educational attainment?

Dr Jackson: Mr Sheridan is correct to say that the EIS has said that class size is one of the issues that should be addressed, but it has also pointed to other issues, such as social inclusion. Tommy Sheridan will know that certain moves have already been made towards reducing class sizes but that, nevertheless, there are constraints in the system, such as the number of available classrooms and teachers and the implications of the McCrone settlement. The issue is much more complex than the Scottish Socialist Party and the Scottish National Party seem to think.

In relation to discipline, the central issue is the disruption of other children's learning. One of the many ways in which we could be doing more in that regard—not that we are not starting to do a lot—is in relation to continuous professional

development. I would like the minister to say what is being done or what it is projected will be done on discipline with regard not only to teachers' initial training but to their continuous professional development. If teaching and learning are the essence of the McCrone settlement and so on, discipline must be viewed as being a big aspect of that as it is through tackling discipline problems that the education environment will improve.

As we know, Professor Pamela Munn has done a lot of work on ethos indicators in the school. Her work has shown that everyone in the school—not only the teacher but the senior management and the head teacher—must be involved in discipline. Many of the initiatives that the Scottish Executive has brought in, particularly those for head teachers, are helpful in that regard, as are the extra support staff that the minister mentioned. The EIS is complimentary about the Executive's idea of spreading good practice to other schools.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton talked about second-chance learning centres. I would like the Conservatives' summing-up speech to be a little clearer about exactly who they envisage would go to those learning centres. Am I correct in understanding that special educational needs children would be in those centres along with extremely disruptive children? We should be told the answer to that question, as parents will be concerned—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will the member take an intervention?

The Deputy Presiding Officer: I am sorry, Lord James, but Dr Jackson is in her last minute and cannot take an intervention. You must finish now, Dr Jackson.

Dr Jackson: Lord James Douglas-Hamilton can answer my question later.

On the social inclusion agenda, I know that there is concern, as the EIS has pointed out, not only about continuous professional development in the area but about resources.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: You must finish now, Dr Jackson.

Dr Jackson: Finally, just to say—

The Deputy Presiding Officer: I am sorry, you must finish now.

Dr Jackson: I urge members not to support the Conservative motion.

10:54

Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP): Any debate on Scottish education should start from points of principle and I believe that the parties should set out their attitudes to how Scottish

education should be structured and the curriculum directed. For me, the principle is that, in all our decisions, we must do two things: first, we must maximise the opportunities for every pupil in the education system; and, secondly, we must take every step that we can to realise the potential of every child in the education system.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton accused ministers of misdirecting the education service. I have many criticisms of what the Executive does in a range of policies but I do not believe that it is fundamentally misdirecting the education service. However, I believe that the Conservative motion is about misdirecting the education service. The motion is about fostering a culture of inequality that will create advantage for some at the expense of others. It is about trying to create a system that gives some people a leg up at the expense of other people. I quite understand that there are many inequalities in our society and that people need support to help them to advance, but that should not happen at the expense of others. However, that is what lies at the core of the Conservative proposition.

That consideration also lies at the heart of the debate about choice, on which Jamie Stone made a particularly helpful point. The choice agenda that the Conservatives put forward is irrelevant in many areas of the country. In my constituency—a large, rural area, with small communities surrounding major towns, none of which has more than one secondary school—there is no way that individuals have the choice of taking their voucher for however many thousands of pounds to some other educational establishment. The Conservatives' policy is a disgraceful attempt to lure parents in areas in which there is poor educational achievement, or a concern that the education system cannot deliver the quality that we all want for all of our children, into taking their vouchers to another sector, particularly the private sector. That will simply cause even more inequality to fester in our society.

Alex Johnstone: Does the member accept that the potential exists for the funds that are transferred with the pupil to become the lifeblood of many rural schools, such as those that are threatened by councils such as the SNP council in Angus?

Mr Swinney: No, I do not believe that. I think that the voucher system would be the death knell for rural schools in Scotland. It would be the final testament to the Conservatives' vicious attitude towards the delivery of public education in our communities. It is a malicious measure that would undermine rural schools.

I understand the difficulties that all councils face about educational provision at a local level. My colleagues on Angus Council know that I do not

support them in one respect of their education proposals in my constituency. I have made that clear to them. However, I accept that councils are responding to the Government's direction to improve the quality of the school estate and that, at times, that requires that firm decisions be made. That said, I say to the council and the Executive that a one-size-fits-all approach should not be taken to the delivery of services in rural schools because, in many cases, the quality of the rural schools is of a high order, even if the quality of the estate might not be. The Government has to be sensitive to the particular needs of rural areas in that respect. There must not be an absolutely uniform approach.

For Alex Johnstone to take me to task about the attitudes of an SNP council when his colleagues in the Borders have shut schools left, right and centre is a disgrace.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does Mr Swinney accept that the widespread closure of rural schools throughout Scotland—it happens much more often in Scotland than it does south of the border—demonstrates that there is a vital need for a national presumption against the closure of rural schools?

Mr Swinney: I am in favour of a national presumption against the closure of rural schools. It would have been particularly helpful to have had that national presumption when the Conservatives were closing rural schools in my constituency in a previous era.

I want to draw together two points relating to educational achievement. There is a compelling argument for reducing class sizes and I would have hoped that, in our new politics in the Scottish Parliament, the Government would have given a bit more credit to the SNP for leading and advancing the debate about reducing class sizes. It is the most reliable way to ensure that educational attainment improves, because smaller class sizes improve the opportunities that children have to participate actively in their learning. I hope that the Government will intensify its efforts to reduce class sizes and will accept the well-prepared and well-marshalled arguments of the SNP that there should be a widespread reduction in class sizes throughout Scotland.

My final point is on support for children with special educational needs. I voted for the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill with a heavy heart and only because of the assurance that the Minister for Education and Young People gave the Parliament that resources would be made available to local authorities to provide support to children with special educational needs. I hope that the minister will remain true to that assurance, because the fragile individuals in our society who need support

depend on his ability to deliver on it and I do not think that that has happened to date.

11:01

Kate Maclean (Dundee West) (Lab): Like the Minister for Education and Young People, I welcome the opportunity to be involved in this debate and—again, like the minister—I would say that the Tories' motion and their contributions have entirely lived down to my expectations.

Lord James's contribution on behalf of the Tory party showed a distinct lack of any grasp on reality. He stated that education should allow able children to rise to excellence, based on their talents. That demonstrates a simplistic attitude to the complicated situation in education. The motion sets education in the context of a Ready Brek advert, where, following a warming breakfast, a well-dressed, warmly wrapped-up child is waved off to school by a loving parent, surrounded by a rosy glow.

The stark reality for many children is very different from the la-la land that the Tories inhabit. Many children have to get themselves, and often younger siblings, up and out to school with no breakfast, no parental interest and certainly no rosy glow. Some children in Scotland start school barely able to speak, to use cutlery or to dress themselves properly because of the chaotic lifestyles that they have at home. I say to Lord James that education should be not just for the majority of children, as he stated, but for all Scotland's children.

Under the Tories' proposals, the children who need the most investment in their lives would become a failed by-product of the system. We could argue all day about whether the Tories would cut £600 million from Scottish education—fortunately, the proof of that pudding will never be in the eating—but it is clear that their intention would be to redistribute education spending away from the very children who need it most. The Tories would create a two-tier system, in which per capita funding would inevitably lead to schools in more affluent areas and private schools being able to meet the needs of their pupils and schools in areas of deprivation being unable to do that.

It is no coincidence that there are lower levels of attainment, more exclusions and worse behaviour at schools in deprived areas than at schools in areas that do not suffer from deprivation. In the education league tables that Mr Brocklebank mentioned, attainment in Dundee is shown as poor and truancy and exclusions are shown as high. However, if he looks at the league tables that measure poverty by every indicator, he will see that there are significant areas of deprivation in Dundee.

Fiona Hyslop: Does the member share my concern that, for some reason, there is difficulty with schools in Dundee achieving the level of attainment of schools in similar areas, or even that of schools in areas that are even poorer? That is a major challenge. I welcome what is happening in Dundee to address the problem—

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh): Quickly.

Fiona Hyslop: —but it should have happened far sooner. Does the member recognise—

The Deputy Presiding Officer: Oh, come on.

Fiona Hyslop: —the work of Joe Fitzpatrick, in particular, in raising this—

The Deputy Presiding Officer: No, really. That is long enough.

Kate Maclean: No, I do not recognise the work of Joe Fitzpatrick or that of any of Fiona Hyslop's SNP colleagues in Dundee, who demoralise teachers, parents and pupils by using the situation as a political football. I accept that the league tables show below-average performance in some of Dundee's schools, but Dundee has specific problems. Deprivation is widespread in Dundee and is not limited to pockets, as it is in some other areas. Throughout Dundee's schools, teachers are working hard to try to overcome the difficulties that they face. Other league tables show that in some cases the level of improvement in attainment is higher than the Scottish average—that shows that the teachers' efforts are working.

Dundee City Council's education department welcomes the Scottish Executive's support for the learning together in Dundee initiative, of which I am sure the minister is aware. The council would like to pilot ways to free up more time in the curriculum to extend that initiative and I hope that a proposal on that matter will come from the curriculum review. Teachers need more support under Labour, not less support under the Tories, and they do not need the carping and headline-grabbing that they get from the SNP group in Dundee.

It is our responsibility as a Parliament to try to create learning situations that overcome the difficulties that many of our children face. That is why, at decision time, I will vote for Peter Peacock's amendment. I do not support the Tories' crackpot plans; I will vote to support all Scotland's children, not just a privileged few.

11:06

Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con): My colleague James Douglas-Hamilton eloquently described the deficiencies in our education system, and I agree with him.

I wish to draw attention to the state of some school buildings, especially those in the Argyll and Bute Council area. If we want to encourage teachers and pupils to attain higher goals, it is imperative that school buildings are properly maintained and continually updated and, at the very least, that they do not fall below civilised standards.

Last Friday, I visited Hermitage Primary School in Helensburgh, which is Argyll's largest primary school. Although I was impressed by the atmosphere that prevailed among teachers and pupils, I was appalled by the state of the building. There were damp patches on the walls and leaky ceilings in some of the classrooms. Children had been moved out of those rooms, creating overcrowding elsewhere. In the corner of one classroom that was being used, foliage was growing through the floor—I do not think that it was an environmental sciences project. The state of the toilet facilities left a great deal to be desired, and the dining room was in the gymnasium. I have yet to visit Arrochar Primary School but I am told that its building is in an even worse condition. Dunoon Primary School's building is also in a bad way.

Those three schools were all in the original non-profit distributing organisation scheme for rebuilding, which initially included 28 schools in Argyll and Bute. I welcomed that scheme, but in July 2004 the council reduced the figure to 17 schools and in January 2005 it further downgraded the list, which now includes only 11 schools. In addition to the three schools that I have mentioned, many other schools are in a bad structural state and require urgent maintenance. The catch-up figure for repairs alone runs into eight figures, and Argyll and Bute Council, which has a school estate that comprises 95 schools, is in the unenviable position of having to find that money.

I hope that there will not be talk of tests of proportionate advantage and a threat of schools closing. Good local schools are pillars of communities and wherever possible they should be maintained, but they must be maintained in good condition. Argyll and Bute is only part of the story in the Highlands and Islands and many other councils face similar problems. There is obviously a crisis that urgently requires a solution.

In rural areas, people often have little choice about where they send their children to school. Some parents are therefore forced to send their children to schools that have substandard buildings. The situation is intolerable and must be remedied as soon as possible. A society in which some children are educated in comfortable surroundings while others are forced to experience deprivation of the kind that I mentioned is hardly an inclusive society.

Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab): Is the member aware that before devolution BBC Scotland came to the school that I worked in to film it as an example of the poor state of school buildings that had developed under the Tories? Will he tell me how many new schools were built in Highland or in Argyll under the Tories?

Mr McGrigor: An enormous number of schools—all with flat roofs—were built in the 1960s under the Macmillan Government and the Wilson Government. They are all falling to pieces now; they have not been properly maintained by Labour.

The Conservatives are committed to introducing choice into education for all Scotland's children. The current situation allows choice only if parents can afford to pay for it either by moving to an area in which their preferred choice of school is situated or by sending their children to a private school. We think that things should change.

No matter how much Mr Peacock denigrates the Swedish education system, it is still interesting to observe the results of education policy in Sweden, which has a socialist Government. New organisations can apply for funding to the national agency for education, and if they meet the required conditions, they can set up new schools that are independently run but Government-funded. That policy has been successful, especially in rural areas.

Robert Brown: Will the member take an intervention?

Mr McGrigor: No—I am sorry.

Initially, the largest number of applications was for schools in urban areas, but three of Sweden's northernmost municipalities—which are at or above the Arctic circle, in the rural and sparsely populated county of Norrbotten—are now among the municipalities with the largest share of students in Government-funded independent schools. The Conservative policy of allowing the setting up of new Government-funded independent schools has often been criticised as a policy that would benefit only urban children. However the Swedish experience clearly shows that a policy of allowing new schools to be created, with Government funding, where they are desired allows exactly that—the creation of good schools where they are wanted and needed. In answer to Elaine Murray's explosive outburst, I inform her that new schools have been so popular in socialist Sweden that, since 1993, their number has increased by 480 per cent.

Such a policy would be good for schools in both urban and rural areas and would safeguard schools that are threatened with closure. In turn, our rural communities would be helped to remain vibrant and active and young people and families

would want to live in them. As I said, the local school is a strong pillar of the community and schools with good reputations draw people to the surrounding area. Therefore, they are a focal point that can encourage the repopulation of much of Scotland. Our policy will mean that such things happen.

11:12

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): First, I want to make some general comments on discipline and class sizes. We all know that one unruly child can contaminate an entire class. Support for teachers in the school environment must therefore be real and financed and the personnel must be in place. I am pleased that the power to exclude as the ultimate sanction has now been returned to head teachers. That power must be used.

In passing, I mention Jamie Oliver—in fact, I have lodged a motion on the 2005 Sodexho school meals and lifestyle survey. Jamie Stone made important points about the impact of additives in food on the behaviour of our schoolchildren.

I turn to class sizes. From my historic experience—and it is quite historic—as a primary and secondary teacher, I have no doubt that when I had a smaller class, the exchange between the teacher and pupils was far more rewarding. On a practical level, with five classes from first year to fifth year, hundreds of children passed through my classroom doors every day, and each child generated work that required my attention. Quite simply, if jotters were not taken home every week—if not every night—they could not have been marked.

Primary teachers—of which there are two in my family—are now buried in assessments and forms and spend unpaid hours preparing. Although they have a vocation, they sometimes get weary. Add to that the impertinence and unruly behaviour that trickles down even to primary 1. My sister recently narrated an incident in which she tried to separate two very young primary children who were at each other's throats. However, she could not intervene for fear of being accused of assault by the two little children who were at each other's throats.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's motion mentions independent schools, with which I have no issue. If parents want to spend £10,000 or £15,000 a year to send their children to independent schools, that is a matter for them and is their financial choice. There are big distinctions within the range of independent schools. I think that schools such as Donaldson's school for the deaf and Rudolph Steiner schools will still have charitable status—that is not a matter for me or for

the Conservatives, but for the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator. However, I cannot see how schools such as Fettes College, with their unduly restrictive entrance fees, can possibly pass the test in the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill. I have continued to make that point on behalf of my party.

School closures are as much about the coalition's intransigence as anything. In its document entitled "Building our Future: Scotland's School Estate", the coalition focuses on buildings. Buildings are important, but that document states:

"The school is a core part of the physical community and should play a role in building strong, confident communities and a safer environment, and contribute to an improved quality of life for the community."

So everything is about the community. However, councils are taking up PPPs and private finance initiative contracts, which are pretty much all that they can use. They are building schools that will cost a fortune at the end of the day. As with buying a car on hire purchase, things look good at the top of the balance sheet. However, then we see that we have actually paid a vast amount of money, and when we eventually get the asset, it will be 25 or 35 years old.

Of course, risk for a building in such contracts does not simply pass from a local authority to a company, as we have seen with recent bankruptcies and with the dispute about who would pay for moving prisoners following fire damage under PPP and PFI contracts in prisons in England. Such deals are bad deals.

Those contracts are also a bad deal for the structure of buildings. Recent reports have made it plain that, under such contracts, classrooms that are too small and which are inappropriate for children from an environmental point of view have been built. Even gymnasiums have been made small to comply with contracts, just when we need our children to take more exercise. There are huge problems.

I turn to closures and the Conservatives. Bearing in mind what my colleague John Swinney said, I quote what David Mundell said in a speech in a members' business debate on a motion in my name on the closure of Borders schools. He said:

"It would be helpful to make clear the position—which is also my position—of my Conservative colleagues on Scottish Borders Council. They clearly believe that no school should close unless closure has the support of parents and the community."—[Official Report, 25 March 2004; c 7180.]

Well, goodbye Burnmouth Primary School, Hutton Primary School, Cranshaws Primary School and others, which the Conservatives all voted for. Obviously, people were not listening to David Mundell's speech.

Such things need not happen. In that members' business debate, we argued for a presumption against school closures against the background of a commitment that schools should be at the heart of the community. We should take a lesson from the Highland Council, which does not close schools. It has a presumption against school closures and makes great attempts to keep them open, even when there are no children at a school in a community. Such schools are mothballed for two or three years while the council finds out whether it can draw people into the community and therefore bring i