I have been inundated recently with letters from parents and school councils deeply concerned about the City of Edinburgh Council’s plans to slash school budgets. The Council are set to reduce school budgets this year by 2.5% and reduce the non-school budget within their children and families department by 6.8%.
Furthermore, they plan to reduce school budgets by 9% over the next three years which is deeply worrying.
Parents, children and teachers across Edinburgh have my full support in opposing the budget cuts proposed by the City of Edinburgh Council and I am doing everything I can to ensure that this issue is properly represented in Parliament and at local authority level. I am in constant contact with our Education spokesperson, Cllr Ricky Henderson, who believes along with my parliamentary colleagues that front line services should be protected as much as possible and are yet to be convinced that these funding cuts are necessary. Under previous Labour Administration Education was top priority, protecting schools based budgets and investing over £300m rebuilding or refurbishing 34 education establishments (schools and community centres) between 1999 and 2007.
Not one new project has been initiated since May 2007. In the weeks ahead, the Labour group in the council will be focusing on putting together alternative budget proposals that recognise the crucial importance of front line services like education and particularly school based budgets.
In November, I lodged a motion in Parliament to raise awareness and gather support, which is available below. I have also written to the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Michael Russell and the Convenor for Education at Edinburgh City Council, Cllr MacLaren regarding these concerns and the many areas of concern being expressed to me by a number of parent councils, parents and teachers across the city.
I am meeting with representatives from parent councils in Parliament very soon and will also be attending public meetings so I that can engage directly with parents, teachers and pupils. If you have any specific issues you’d like to raise with me, please email George.Foulkes.MSP@scottish.parliament.uk or call my office on 0131 348 6827
*S3M-05287 George Foulkes (Lothians) (Scottish Labour): Relentless Education Cuts across Edinburgh — That the Parliament supports parents, teachers and pupils across Edinburgh in their opposition to further school budget cuts to be implemented by the City of Edinburgh Council; considers the strain that last year’s 1.5% cut placed on school resources and staff; is strongly opposed to a further 2.5% cut year-on-year for the next three years; sees this as a complete failure by the SNP/Liberal Democrat administration to manage its budget and is dismayed that it is allowing children’s education to suffer as a direct result of this; views that the cumulative effect of this will mean a cut of 9% in 2012-13; considers that head teachers are already struggling to meet basic school running costs such as heating and toilet repairs; is aware of the strength of feeling among communities and teachers, many of whom could lose their jobs in order to balance budgets; further considers that teacher unemployment is at an all-time high in Scotland while class sizes have reached 32 in some schools; believes that further cuts will only compound the problem and further adversely affect the standard and quality of children’s education; believes that the Scottish Government’s lack of intervention and action on this issue shows that its priorities are totally wrong, particularly when it invests so much time and money in making a case for separation from the rest of the United Kingdom instead of investing in Scotland’s children’s education; thinks that this, combined with its failure to build or refurbish one single school since May 2007, shows a total lack of commitment to improving education, and demands that the SNP/Liberal Democrat administration and the Scottish Government come together and resolve the funding crisis that is believed to be destroying education across the city.
Supported by: Sarah Boyack, Cathy Jamieson, Rhona Brankin, Jackie Baillie, Des McNulty, Robin Harper, Mr Frank McAveety, Mary Mulligan, John Park, Ken Macintosh, Karen Whitefield, David Stewart
When a local authority announces its intention to close a school – it sadly often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Parents understandably apply for places in neighbouring schools, teachers lose heart and open the job pages, communities look for a new hub.
Two years ago, a naïve and bullish new council administration set about an extensive foolhardy closure programme – 22 schools long. Two years on, that same, bruised and battered administration has now set out to close just four primary schools. Yet the lack of thought, heart, and educational benefit to the pupils, who will ultimately pay the price, remains.
Recently, I attended a briefing with Councillor Marilyne MacLaren, the Education Convener of the City of Edinburgh Council. We pointed out to her that her party made a manifesto promise to reduce class sizes to 18 for primaries 1 to 3. In Holyrood, the Cabinet Secretary reconfirmed that last Wednesday.
The most recent statistics for Edinburgh show that there are only 480 pupils in primary 1 classes of 18 or fewer pupils; 2,804 primary 1 pupils are in the 18 to 25 category; and 398 pupils are in classes of more than 25. Edinburgh is way behind some other authorities, such as Midlothian and East Ayrshire, to take two random examples, in achieving the target for reducing class sizes in primary schools.
So what is necessary to enable us to reduce class sizes? There are two key factors. One is the requirement for more classrooms—that is inevitable. If we have the same number of pupils but reduce class sizes, we need more rooms in which to educate them.
We also need more teachers. That is why the Edinburgh proposals are particularly worrying. If the City of Edinburgh Council goes ahead with the closure of those four schools, Drumbrae, Fort, Burdiehouse and Royston, it will mean more pressure on the receiving schools round about.
The parents of pupils at those schools, have already said, it will mean that classrooms that have been transformed into music rooms, libraries, physical education and general-purpose rooms will have to be used as classrooms. That will diminish the educational experience not just for those pupils who come in from the closed schools but for those who are already in the receiving schools including affecting their delivery of the Curriculum for Excellence.
Also, I find it strange that Edinburgh has changed its arguments to fit in with how the legislation appears to be changing. Originally, it said: "smaller class sizes are a priority and are in the best educational interests of the child”, But now it is saying: "larger class sizes are more beneficial for children as they will receive 'team teaching' and be entitled to more money per capita". An amazing volte-face!
Marilyne MacLaren also claimed, in front of a number of officials and fellow politicians that she had the “full” support of the EIS for this new policy approach. However, following discussion with the EIS and listening to BBC news reports of teaching unions now speaking out against larger class sizes and calling for the promised class size of 18, this is clearly not true.
The EIS accepts that some school closures will happen but it does not support this if the consequences mean the standard of education for the child is compromised which they argue in Edinburgh’s case it will be. The EIS is concerned with a number of the recommendations and feels that this decision is solely financially motivated.
Within this proposal, the council intends to knock down the closing schools and sell off the land to generate cash. However, the EIS believes this a high-risk strategy in the current economic climate, as developers are not buying land. Therefore, the council could be left with a school being knocked down and a piece of land that it cannot sell, thus being financially worse off. Moreover, if houses were to be built on the site it would increase the number of children needing school places.
Is it not appalling and, indeed, verging on criminal that we are closing schools and making class sizes larger when we have so many unemployed teachers? We have 550-trained secondary and primary teachers who are unemployed. Then there are the teachers who have just done their probationary year and who are excited and looking forward to teaching—there are no jobs for them.
When we spoke to Marilyne MacLaren, of the nearly 100 probationer teachers in Edinburgh, only 10 had been offered teaching jobs, even though they are desperate to teach and there are kids who are desperate to learn. That is the disgraceful situation in SNP-controlled Scotland at the moment.
Relatives of people killed at work formed this national campaigning group. Fack believes families bereaved because of unsafe and unhealthy workplaces are angry and frustrated. They feel they have been robbed twice: Once of their loved ones in incidents that should have been prevented by employers simply obeying the law on workplace health and safety; and secondly of their right to justice.
I was recently contacted by a constituent of mine who tragically lost her younger brother in a preventable accident at his place of work.
She was not only writing to ensure I was aware of the campaign, fack, and of what more she thought the government could be doing on this issue, but to tell me that she joined the Labour party after listening to contributions made at a labour party conference fringe event on corporate killings.
She said she was inspired by the many contributions made by both those that have been directly affected by this issue and those that have worked hard in the Labour party to fight against corporate killings. She is proud of what Labour has achieved on this but feels more needs to be done.
The campaign is seeking urgent government action to halt the complacency about deaths at work and decent laws which will bring dangerously negligent bosses to justice. fack wants a review of the way work-related deaths are investigated and the way families are treated. In addition, it believes workers and safety reps must be given more rights to protect themselves against exposure to unacceptable risks to their lives and health.
I offer this campaign my full support and will continue to work with colleagues including Cathy Peattie MSP and Karen Gillon MSP who continue to put pressure on the government to achieve the aims and objectives of this very worthwhile cause.
If you believe what you read and hear in the media you will think every MP is pocketing, or "trousering" to use the awful new word, up to £150,000 on top of their salary.
The truth is that the largest part of these expenses are to pay staff and run offices in the constituency providing a service for constituents.
When I was first elected in 1979, there was no such provision. I was one of the few MPs who had an office in the constituency – paid for by the Labour Party. We ran a weekly tote to raise money to pay for rent and employ staff.
Before that, being an MP had been the prerogative of the rich Tory gentry and a few good solid Labour MPs with union backing enabling them to survive.
But, increasingly, the role of an MP has changed from a legislator in London who visited their constituency occasionally, to an advocate and super social worker, taking up issues and solving problems for constituents. That is why the independent Top Salaries Review Committee recommended an "office costs allowance" for MPs to set up offices to serve their constituents' growing needs and demands.
Which brings us to the second major part of the expenses – the cost of travel. No longer can MPs live in London and visit their constituencies from time to time. They are expected to be in the Commons from Monday to Thursday and back with their constituents, and families, at weekends. They cannot be expected to cover that huge cost out of a relatively modest salary.
This brings us, finally, to the third major complaint – the London living allowance. MPs outwith Greater London cannot be expected to travel home each night so need to stay in London during the week. The allowance was originally calculated by multiplying a civil servant's overnight allowance by the number of nights the House of Commons was sitting each year. Because of this, and because salary increases kept being foregone by governments nervous of the public reaction, the London allowance came to be perceived by some as a substitute for those lost salary increases.
It was originally paid in 12 monthly instalments but, paradoxically, the increasing clamour for accountability meant receipts had to be produced to justify it. This is what has led to the current anomalous position and regrettable abuse of the system by a few.
During my 26 years as an MP, I had never heard of the so-called "John Lewis list" and did not have a luxury kitchen or plasma TV on the allowance, but merely covered the real extra cost of having to live in London.
If the office cost allowance was to be cut, it would be the constituents who would suffer, not the MP. All of this has rightly raised the issue of whether the current level of MPs' salary is correct. Currently it is about half the salary of a GP and less than the headmaster of a small school.
Democracy is beyond price. I have seen military dictatorships and communist states and know how vital it is we have a fair, well respected and effective democratically-elected parliament.
In order to get the right people to stand, they need to be properly paid so we can attract people from all backgrounds. The current level of pay will not do that. If we pay peanuts, it is not surprising that we end up with some monkeys. Thankfully, we also end up with great leaders who are willing to accept the sacrifice.
There is, however, a quid pro quo. If a decent salary is to be paid to our MPs then they, in turn, might accept no extra outside jobs and pledge to work full-time for their constituents and in scrutinising legislation. That is only right and should, of course, also apply to MSPs.
I know I am setting myself up here, but please note that proviso. This would apply once elected members – MPs and MSPs – are properly paid. And it would also apply to members of the second chamber at Westminster if they also become full-time elected salaried members.
Tangled web
My experience tells me that this column will be the subject of many comments on the Evening News website.
Most stories get a dozen or two comments, any which criticise the SNP get many hundreds, and I have a few devoted followers who delight in commenting on pearls of wisdom which I very occasionally manage to see.
What is disappointing, however, is the vitriolic nature of some of the comments and the appalling grammar and spelling. They seldom address the issues but seem preoccupied with the perceived personal peccadilloes of the authors, journalist or people quoted in articles.
Astonishingly, they are posted all through the night and, while it is not a prerequisite for supporters of independence to be able to spell the word, it would increase our confidence in their judgement if they might resort to a spell-check from time to time.
I used to be what is described as a ‘nuclear sceptic'. The problem of disposal of radioactive waste, the accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island leaks from Sellafield caused me concern. They still do.
However when I was Minister of State for Scotland I was a member of the Energy Task Force chaired by Brian Wilson, then Energy Minister.
We looked at the future demand for electricity and the forecast installed generating capacity and saw a growing gap.
It was clear also that the gas we were increasingly relying on came less and less from the North Sea and increasingly from less stable areas of Asia and North Africa.
Our remit was to recommend what should be done to ensure the security and diversity of energy supply - to keep the lights in our homes on and the fuel for our economy flowing.
We needed to ensure that more electricity could be generated from reliable fuels, and from a variety of sources.But we also had a responsibility to ensure we achieved our promised reductions in Carbon Dioxide emissions.
Coal fired power stations are not as clean as others even with new technology, but will still be essential with a reduced capacity.
Existing Nuclear Power Stations will reach the end of their planned lives over the next few decades.
Certainly we agreed our first priority should be to reduce projected demand by increased efficiency with insulation etc. and this is being done. It also has the advantage of reducing our domestic electricity and gas bills.
And we recommend a huge increase in all forms of renewables. But these have two major disadvantages the Scottish Government will not face up to.
When the wind stops the electricity supply stops also so it can never be relied on for baseload.
Also it is produced far away from the major cities and the bulk of the demand so many more transmission lines will be needed to criss cross the countryside.
That is why we came to the inescapable conclusion that the only way of closing the energy gap is to build new nuclear power stations on existing nuclear power sites.
But, I hear you shout, what about safety and waste?
Well the good news is that the new generation of power stations are ultra safe and produce a tiny amount of waste compared with the present ones.
Indeed I am told that over 90% of waste that we will ever produce is with us already and has to be stored and dealt with whatever.
So if you don't want the lights to go out, along with TV's, washing machines and the computers that are now part of everyday life we will al have to bite the bullet of new nuclear.
George Foulkes MSP
After over 35 years in elected politics, George has seen it all. He’s been a councillor, an MP, is a member of the House of Lords and since May this year an MSP. He remembers both David Miliband and Gordon Brown as teenagers. His “For Foulkes Sake” blog is a step back in time
…with a modern twist.
Accessibility | Privacy | Site map
© George Foulkes MSP