Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have great interest in Daniel Johnson’s amendment, for the reasons that he has already set out, but does he share my concern that we would end up with a subjective test that would sit on top of what have previously been, in the main, objective assessments, which would be the same? Can he deal with that point?

Amendment 133 is more specific than that, in that, if the section 104 order does not deal with the question of conscientious objection and opting out, the bill cannot come into force.

I will reiterate the question that I put to Michael Marra. This bill will potentially be passed by this Parliament. If it is, does Liam McArthur have any understanding of how long it would be before it came into force? That question is also being asked outside the Parliament.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no.

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests.

It is very powerful to follow what might be Liz Smith’s last contribution on education. I would like to take a moment to say that it has taken you a long time, since 2007, to graduate—longer than many of our young people in university—but you are good at something. Your empathy, wisdom, knowledge and ability to advocate for what our young people need, even though they might not know that they need it, have been exceptional. You will be greatly missed in the chamber, and your contribution to education will be greatly treasured and also missed, so thank you.

One of the enduring tests of education is not simply that we affirm but whether we are prepared to examine claims rigorously rather than just accept them uncritically. That principle serves this Parliament well when we assess claims of success in public policy. It is in that spirit that I rise to support the motion in the name of Willie Rennie and to support the Scottish Labour amendment, because they ask the Parliament to do something entirely reasonable: to judge the Scottish Government not on promises made but on commitments delivered.

Since 2016, the Government has set out a series of headline pledges on education with clear targets that were publicly stated and repeatedly affirmed. The pledges included free laptops for all pupils, free bikes for children who cannot afford them, free school meals for all pupils up to primary 7, an additional 3,500 teachers, reduced class contact time and, critically, the closing of the poverty-related attainment gap by 2026. Those were not Opposition demands; they were Government commitments. However, many of those commitments have been missed, diluted, delayed or quietly abandoned altogether. That matters, because, when education targets are missed, it is not spreadsheets that suffer; it is schools, teachers and families—it is our children who are let down.

The Government might argue that circumstances have changed. It might point to the pandemic or wider pressures. However, leadership is not tested when delivery is straightforward; it is tested when priorities must be defended and promises must be honoured under strain.

The motion is right to state that the failure to meet the commitments has had real and tangible consequences, which we can see in the classroom. Teachers speak of rising levels of violence and disruption, while pupils with additional support needs too often face delay or denial when they seek the help that they are legally entitled to.

At the same time, the profession is under profound pressure. Record numbers of newly qualified teachers are leaving the profession not through a lack of vocation but because the system is failing to sustain them. Workloads are excessive, class sizes remain high and promised reductions in class contact time have not been delivered. It should surprise no one that teachers are once again considering industrial action. That is not a system at ease; it is a system that is stretched close to breaking point.

The motion directs us to the attainment gap, which is perhaps the clearest measure of this Government’s education record. For years, ministers have rightly described closing the poverty-related attainment gap as their defining mission. However, the gap remains wide, and progress has been uneven and fragile. The motion does not deny the complexity of the challenge, but it rejects the idea that ambition alone is a substitute for delivery. Scotland’s children do not have the luxury of waiting, because they get one chance at their childhood.

That is why I support the Labour amendment, which recognises that international evidence matters. Declining performance since 2012 is not about league table vanity; it is a warning signal that long trends in literacy, numeracy and equity are falling.

I turn briefly to the cabinet secretary’s amendment. It offers an impressive catalogue of budgets, figures and future intentions. However, it confirms the problem that this debate is about, because it substitutes announcement for achievement and asks the Parliament to look forward rather than account for what has not yet been delivered. Investment is not in dispute, but delivery is. It is right to have gratitude for teachers, staff, parents and pupils, but that cannot be used as a shield.

Education is one of the clearest tests of whether opportunity in Scotland is broadly shared. It is disappointing that this SNP Government has not learned that lesson.

15:28

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no.

The challenge is that an incredible level of discourtesy has been shown towards the committee by others outside this place. Given the discussions that we have had about the challenges that sometimes exist in getting witnesses to this place, does the minister envisage that the environment will perhaps change in the next session and that the requirement to attend committees may become much higher? In the past, committees have accepted it where people have been unable to attend, but this level of discourtesy from such an important a witness raises the question of how we can ensure attendance at our committees.

Will the member give way?

On behalf of Scottish Labour, I am pleased to open this afternoon’s debate in support of the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s excellent report. I thank the committee and all those who contributed to the inquiry.

It is right that we begin where this Parliament always begins—with the people who sit at the heart of such inquiries. Public inquiries matter because they give victims, families and communities a voice when the system has failed them. As I mentioned in my intervention, public inquiries are potentially on the cusp of losing the confidence of communities because, at the moment, many individuals see them as a last resort for getting an answer when a system appears to have closed its doors to them.