Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02786)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Thank you. Earlier this week, it was revealed that student enrolment at Edinburgh College had fallen by 40 per cent between 2010 and 2014. The Educational Institute of Scotland says that it is “gravely concerned” about the situation. Can the First Minister confirm whether the number of students at college has fallen across Scotland as a whole since 2007?
As Kezia Dugdale will be aware, we have maintained our commitment to maintain full-time equivalent places in colleges. We are also spending more in terms of the revenue budget on colleges than I think Labour ever did throughout the eight years that it was in government.
Yes—we have restructured college education to make it more effective and efficient, and to ensure that those who go to colleges are more likely to come out of college with a qualification that will help them to get into employment. I am proud of the Government’s record on colleges, as I am proud of its record on other aspects of education. However, I also take the view—as I do across the range of responsibilities that my Government and I have—that we will always look to do more and to do better, because we owe that to the people of Scotland.
The First Minister just told members in the chamber that she has maintained the number of full-time places. I am afraid that that is incorrect, and the Audit Scotland report that I am holding up evidences that. There are actually 3,000 fewer full-time places, and 140,000 fewer students going to colleges across Scotland, than there were when the Scottish National Party came to office in 2007. That is because of cuts to college funding that this Government made.
Today, pupils in Scotland are sitting their English exams, and we wish them well. Those exams will, to a large extent, determine their life chances. Yesterday, the First Minister’s Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning said that there has been an increase in the pass rate for national qualifications. Can the First Minister confirm that the education secretary was correct when she said that?
I am prepared to concede to Kezia Dugdale that something that I said in my first answer may not have been entirely accurate. I said that we had maintained full-time equivalent college places in line with our commitment. That is not strictly true, because our commitment was to maintain 116,000 full-time equivalent college places. In the last year for which we have figures, we delivered 119,636, so in fact, if I am being strictly accurate, we have not met our commitment—we have exceeded our commitment.
Kezia Dugdale also talked about funding for colleges. This year, we will invest—I think the figure is—£526 million of revenue funding in colleges. The maximum that Labour ever invested was £510 million, so in terms of both meeting and exceeding our commitment to places—[Interruption.]
Order.
—and making sure that, in these tight financial times, we are investing in our college sector, I believe that this Government’s record stands very close scrutiny.
We have record exam passes in Scotland. I do not take the credit for that. The credit goes to young people and their teachers in every single part of our country.
As I said at the end of my previous answer, I will stand here and defend this Government’s record, because I believe that it is a good record, but I am ambitious for this country and for the people who live in it. Whether it is on education, health or tackling crime, I lead a Government that will continue to aspire to do even better. As long as we do, I hope that we will retain the trust of the people of Scotland, which they put in us as recently as a week ago today.
The First Minister just said that there were record pass rates. Here are the facts: a new analysis by Dr Jim Scott, an education expert at the University of Edinburgh, shows that the number of candidates in Scotland gaining level 3 to 5 qualifications dropped by 20 per cent in the past year—a whopping 20 per cent. That is 102,000 fewer candidates getting the grades that they need to get on in life. The great strength of Scottish education known around the world has always been its breadth, but Dr Scott’s analysis is devastating. It shows that pupils in Scotland are studying fewer subjects and getting worse results. It is not the fault of our teachers, who are dedicated and passionate about giving our young people the best possible start in life.
We know that fewer people are going to college and that the number of pupils getting good grades is falling. So much of that is linked to what happens earlier in the education system. Given that, can the First Minister tell us what proportion of secondary 2 pupils from the poorest backgrounds have the counting skills that they need?
The answer to that question is not enough. That is why I have very recently put a new focus on raising attainment and closing the attainment gap, a commitment that is backed by £100 million of funding so that we can do more to make sure that our young people, regardless of the background they come from, get the best education, the best start in life and the best chance to fulfil their potential. I will never stop working until we have reached a position where background is no barrier to any young person fulfilling their potential. However, equally, I will not stand here and allow Kezia Dugdale to traduce the achievements of young people and their teachers across the country. [Interruption.]
Order.
We have record exam results. The number of higher passes is up 3 per cent from 2013 to 2014. School leaver destinations right now are the best on record, with 90 per cent of pupils who left school during or at the end of the academic year 2012-13 in sustained, positive destinations in March 2014, and fewer young people are leaving school with no qualifications at all, which is something that we should all celebrate. The June 2014 Audit Scotland report found that exam performance has improved over the past decade against all 10 of the attainment measures examined. Those are achievements not of this Government but of young people, teachers and parents across the country, but, yes, there is more to do. As long as I am First Minister, we will have an iron focus on doing the work needed in education to give every single young person in this country, regardless of their background, the best possible start in life.
For years, education professionals, teachers and parents have been warning the Government about the exam system, and the evidence from a third-party senior academic is very serious information that I request the First Minister take very seriously indeed. We are talking about a 20 per cent drop in attainment in one year, and her answer did not give any justification whatsoever for that.
However, my question was specifically about numeracy, and the First Minister said that the progress was “not enough”. It is far from not enough; it is just 25 per cent. One quarter of S2 pupils from the most disadvantaged backgrounds have the numeracy skills that they should have and it is clear that pupils from the wealthiest backgrounds do twice as well. Is that not a damning indictment of eight years of this SNP Government? This really matters. That a child’s ability to read and write still depends on the income of their parents should be a source of shame to the Parliament. After eight years in office, the SNP’s record on education is this: the vast majority of S2 pupils from the poorest backgrounds falling behind in numeracy; the number of pupils passing exams plummeting; and the number of people going to college falling dramatically. In a globalised world where education matters more than at any time in our history, Scotland’s young people are being let down. Is this really a report card to be proud of?
I will look at and take seriously any evidence cited to me. However, more than that, I will make sure that we act on that evidence, which is why, as I have already said, we have announced the attainment challenge backed by £100 million of new funding so that we can continue to build on the work that we have been doing to improve education not just for those in our most deprived areas but for every single young person in this country. There is nothing more important to me—and I am sure that I speak on behalf of people right across the chamber—than education. I think that I said in the chamber last week or the week before that I would not be standing here if I had not had the benefit of a great education. As First Minister, I owe it to every single young person across our country to ensure that they get a great education too, and that is a responsibility that I take seriously.
Let me turn to things such as damning indictments and report cards. Kezia Dugdale talks about the past eight years. For the past eight years, Labour in Scotland has played the same old tune. The SNP is bad in every single thing that we do, according to Labour. The Scottish people issued their own report card on Scottish Labour just last week, and that report card resulted in Scottish Labour getting its worst election result and its lowest share of the vote in living memory. That is what the Scottish people think of Scottish Labour. [Interruption.]
Order.
I heard this morning that a letter is circulating. People are being asked to sign a letter to keep Jim Murphy in a job as Scottish Labour leader. I have only thing to ask Kezia Dugdale—where can I sign?
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02785)
I have no plans at present, although I spoke to the secretary of state on the phone yesterday afternoon.
In two of her answers to Ms Dugdale, the First Minister highlighted the £100 million attainment gap fund that her Government has brought forward. Today, the SNP-dominated Education and Culture Committee has reported back on just such efforts by this Government to tackle the worrying gap in attainment between children in our poorest communities and those in the better-off communities.
The committee says that it is not clear how those efforts by this Government will in any way help to close that gap, and yet, responding to legitimate concerns from this side of the chamber yesterday, the SNP’s Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning simply insisted that we have much to be proud of and issued an incoherent rant against school reform in England, which had not even been mentioned. It is a depressingly stock tactic—to attack English measures in order to brush aside the problems in Scotland.
We all know that this Government has set aside £100 million to boost attainment, but if even an SNP-dominated Education and Culture Committee has no idea what effect it will have, what chance do the rest of us have?
We are currently working with the seven local authorities that will benefit in the first instance from our attainment fund to make sure that we have in place with them robust and measurable plans to ensure that the money that we are investing delivers results in closing the attainment gap. I understand that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has received or will receive a letter from the Education and Culture Committee, and it will be responded to in full with the detail that the committee is looking for. That is exactly how the Government should treat reasonable requests of committees.
I say this to Ruth Davidson in all sincerity. We will have our political ding-dongs across the chamber, but I said to Kezia Dugdale and I will say it again: nothing matters more to me personally than making sure that we face up to any challenges in our education system. No ideology will get in the way of doing what needs to be done. I invite Ruth Davidson, Kezia Dugdale and anybody in the chamber, if they have ideas and suggestions about what they think the Government should be doing, to provide them and I will listen.
I am not going to make any excuses. I am proud of and I have read out—I will not do it again—the achievements of young people, teachers and parents across this country. We have a good education system. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s programme for international student assessment—PISA—study shows that Scotland is narrowing the attainment gap, but there is much, much more work to do, and I am absolutely determined that we do it.
The Education and Culture Committee did not stop there in its letter, which I have in front of me. It also states that, in many schools, there is far too much emphasis on driving pupils towards university, to the detriment of some. These are issues that the Scottish Conservatives have been raising with the First Minister for some time. We need an expansion of college places, and we are committed to 10,000 more apprenticeships so that young people can earn while they learn.
The First Minister likes to write shopping lists of further powers that she wants to see devolved, but the SNP has had full control of our education system for eight years, with no limits whatsoever. [Interruption.]
Order.
In that time, this Government has slashed college places, it has presided over a slump in both literacy and numeracy standards and it has got Scotland to a position in which far fewer youngsters from poor backgrounds are now going to university than anywhere else in these islands. Is it not the case that, on school standards, in university attendance and at college, Scotland’s poorer children are now getting a worse deal than they did when the SNP came to power?
That is absolutely and emphatically not the case. As an aside, let me offer the view that swingeing austerity cuts to the Scottish Government budget do not amount to “no limitations” on what the Government can do. That was an aside, because I take our responsibility seriously.
Ruth Davidson mentioned university education. Let me say two things about that. First, when a young person wants and aspires to go to university, they should have the opportunity to do so regardless of their background, just as I did when I was 17. That is why we have set up the commission to look at tackling inequality in access to university. I want a young person born today to have the same chance of going to university, regardless of their background.
The second point is—[Interruption.] If Ruth Davidson would stop talking at me across the chamber and listen to what I am saying, we might manage to get some consensus going here.
The second point is that, when a young person does not want to go to university or wants to pursue a career in a different direction, they should be supported to do so. That is why we are delivering record numbers of modern apprenticeships. I visited GlaxoSmithKline in Irvine a few weeks ago—perhaps it is a few months ago now—where I talked to young people who would have been perfectly capable of going to university but chose to follow the vocational route instead. We are supporting young people who want to do that.
We also set up the Wood commission on developing Scotland’s young workforce and we are investing the resources to take forward the recommendations, ensuring that there are the right links between schools and businesses, and making sure that young people know all the options that are open to them and then have the support to follow the options that they think are most appropriate to them.
Whether it is on early years, school education, college education or access to university—access to university without the burden of tuition fees, I hasten to add—as long as I am in charge the Scottish Government will never ever shy away from its responsibility to give our young people the best education and the best start in life.
The First Minister will be aware of the recent announcement by Subsea 7 in my constituency of more than 400 job losses to the energy sector. That is on top of job losses that have been announced over the last few weeks. Will the First Minister consider meeting with the energy sector in the north-east to ensure that we do not have a situation in which job losses mean that we cannot fulfil our contracts in terms of extracting energy, and to ensure that we have a skilled workforce for the future?
The Scottish Government—Fergus Ewing in particular—meets regularly with companies working in the energy sector and in the oil and gas sector in particular. The energy advisory board will meet shortly, and I will continue to meet regularly and appropriately with companies and other interested individuals.
The company cited by Dennis Robertson, Subsea 7, is one that the Government knows well and will continue to be in contact with. The jobs task force, which I established in January, is also working with a range of companies in the North Sea sector to seek to minimise job losses and to help those who are affected by redundancy into alternative employment. It has already met on a number of occasions. The partnership action for continuing employment is also deployed in any circumstances where people face redundancy, in order to provide appropriate support.
I am sure that John Swinney or Fergus Ewing would be very happy to meet the member to discuss those issues in more detail.
Welfare System
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government has made an assessment of the likely impact on Scotland of a £12 billion reduction in the United Kingdom welfare system. (S4F-02793)
The UK Government has not yet set out how it will achieve those cuts, so we have not yet been able to make a full assessment of the impact in Scotland. However, if it is assumed that Scotland would take a proportionate share of the £12 billion cut, benefit expenditure in Scotland would be reduced by about £1 billion. That reduction would be in addition to the estimated £6 billion cut to the Scottish welfare bill over the six years to this financial year.
The Scottish Government is already working hard to mitigate the worst of these measures and our current funding will result in an investment of around £296 million over the period 2013-14 to 2015-16.
I want to see an alternative to these measures because I do not believe that it is right that we continue to see some of the most vulnerable people in our society being put in poverty or pushed further into poverty.
We cannot know what the impact of these cuts will be, given that the Conservative Party committed to them without caring how they were going to be achieved. It is no wonder that one of the attendees at last night’s Poverty Alliance event in the Parliament told me that she has never seen such a tangible level of fear among so many people in the face of this threat to what remains of the welfare state.
We can argue for greater control of social security in Scotland, but surely we also have a responsibility to build widespread opposition to these cuts across the whole of the UK. Does the First Minister agree that this assault on those in greatest need follows years of stigmatising and blaming people in poverty—indeed, a propaganda war against the welfare state itself? What will the Scottish Government do in its actions and use of language to reclaim the principle of a society based on mutual care and compassion where everyone’s dignity matters, not just those who are labelled “strivers” or “hard-working families”?
I very much agree with both the substance of Patrick Harvie’s question and the sentiment that lies behind it. For our part, the Scottish Government will never seek to stigmatise the most vulnerable in our society. I take the view—I hope that it is shared on most if not all sides of the chamber—that a decent social security system that looks after people in need is one of the hallmarks of a civilised society. What the Conservatives have done over the past five years with the help of the Liberals to start to rip away that safety net is absolutely appalling, and I believe that we all have a duty to oppose any further attempts to take that net away.
Patrick Harvie rightly mentioned the lack of care taken over the detail of the £12 billion cuts. I cannot have been the only person who was completely and utterly appalled to hear Iain Duncan Smith say three days before the general election:
“as soon as we have done the work and had it properly modelled then we will let everybody know what”
the impact
“is.”
That really sums it up.
This Government will continue to do a number of things. First, we will continue as far as we can—as I said yesterday, there will be a limit to how effectively we can do this—to seek to mitigate the worst impact of those cuts. Secondly, as Patrick Harvie has invited us to do, we will be part of marshalling the opposition to an additional £12 billion of cuts to our welfare budget. Thirdly—and most important—I repeat what I said yesterday to Labour: please be part of this. We will do everything in our power to wrest the powers over welfare out of the hands of the Tory Government and put them into the hands of this democratically elected Parliament.
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Equality
To ask the First Minister how Scotland compares with European Union member states on the issue of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex equality. (S4F-02794)
I am very proud of Scotland’s record as a leader in LGBTI equality, and I am delighted that last week ILGA-Europe recognised us as the best European country for legal equality for LGBTI people, ranking Scotland ahead of the United Kingdom as a whole. We were the first national Government in Europe to fund a transgender rights project, the first country in the UK to consult on introducing same-sex marriage and pride house Glasgow at last year’s Commonwealth games was the first pride house to receive Government support. However, although we have made great progress, there is still room for improvement, which is why we continue to work closely with stakeholders such as the Equality Network to help ensure that LGBTI people experience full equality in all areas of their lives.
I agree with the First Minister that although it is encouraging that Scotland is leading the way there is still much work to be done. Does she share my concerns that barriers to further progress in tackling discrimination against LGBTI individuals in our society might arise if the Conservative Westminster Government progresses its intention to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998?
I agree. The Human Rights Act 1998 matters, because it protects the rights to which everybody in our society is entitled. It has been instrumental in allowing people who have historically suffered discrimination and exclusion to challenge treatment that, in my view, has no place in a modern civilised society. That matters hugely to LGBTI people in Scotland, throughout the UK and beyond.
Without the underpinning of fundamental rights that is provided by the European convention on human rights and legislation such as the Human Rights Act 1998, the immense progress on LGBTI rights that we have seen since the 1980s would undoubtedly have been more difficult. Although that progress has been achieved in Scotland, there are far too many countries around the world where LGBTI people continue to live in fear of their lives.
It is hugely disappointing that the UK Government now appears to be intent on attacking human rights in the way that it has indicated. I say again, as I have said previously this week, that the Scottish Government will do everything in our power to ensure that vital human rights protections remain for people in Scotland.
Rent (Private Tenants)
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that there is a need to protect private tenants from unfair rent rises. (S4F-02792)
Yes, I do. The Scottish Government’s vision is for a private rented sector that provides good-quality homes and high management standards and which inspires consumer confidence. We want tenants to have more security and to be able to assert their rights without fear of eviction. That is why we have consulted on a new tenancy for the private rented sector that proposes to end unpredictability in rent increases by prohibiting more than one rent increase a year, with 12 weeks’ notice required for any change, and also puts in place protection for tenants against unfair or excessive rent hikes, through a process of adjudication.
Although there is widespread support for the Government’s plans to simplify and clarify the private rented sector tenancy system and improve security of tenure by removing the no-fault grounds for repossession, does the First Minister recognise that there are concerns that, because of the second consultation, the timetable for legislation is in danger of slipping, and that the Government’s proposals do not go far enough to make the private rented sector secure, flexible and affordable for tenants?
While we wait for the bill, will the First Minister confirm that she supports the reintroduction of rent controls, that she believes that tenants’ welfare should be put first and that she believes that tenants must be protected by being given sufficient and justifiable notice to leave by landlords?
All those objectives are what led to us consulting in the way that I outlined. The consultation that I and Michael McMahon referred to attracted more than 7,500 responses, which will be analysed by an independent social research company. We expect to publish the findings in early August and we have committed to introducing a bill to Parliament this autumn, so we are determined to keep that timetable on track.
We want to see a private rented sector that provides good-quality homes and high standards of management and we want to ensure that the tenants who live in those homes have the protection that they deserve. We have consulted on a range of proposals around a new tenancy and some of the issues around rent increases that Michael McMahon mentioned. We are serious about tackling those issues, but I am sure that all members will understand that, having embarked on the consultation, it is essential that we complete the process.
I look forward to the new modern tenancy regime, with more proportionate rent rises. Will the First Minister and her Government support tenants to have the right to stay longer in their homes than the current six months?
We want to ensure that tenants have appropriate security of tenure. That is what this process is entirely about. When we introduce the bill—as I said, we plan to do that in the autumn—our proposals will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, and if members such as Jim Hume do not think that the proposals go far enough in any particular areas, they will have the opportunity to put forward amendments.
We are absolutely determined to deliver a modern private rented sector tenancy that is fit for the future, that encourages people to make homes for rent available—because they are required—but which also ensures that people who rely on the private rented sector can also rely on high-quality standards. We have given that commitment and are determined to deliver it.
The last point that I would make is that, although the issue that we are discussing is hugely important, the way to improve the affordability of housing is to increase the supply of housing. Over the lifetime of this session of Parliament, our planned investment in affordable housing will exceed £1.7 billion. We are three quarters of the way into our five-year target for affordable housing and are confident that we are going to meet that target.
Named Persons (Data Sharing)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the concerns raised by the charity, Clan Childlaw, regarding the data-sharing aspect of the named person legislation. (S4F-02788)
The named person service has been developed carefully over more than a decade, with extensive input and wide support from experts. It seeks to put the best interests of every child and young person at the heart of decision making. We have been clear that information should be shared only in a manner that is proportionate and respects the views of children and young people, and is, of course, within existing legal frameworks.
It is worth pointing out that, in January, Lord Pentland rejected the petition against the named person plans on all grounds and ruled that it did not contravene the European convention on human rights or European Union law.
Despite that court ruling by Lord Pentland, Clan Childlaw argues strongly that the balance between data sharing among professionals and the ability of the young person to access confidential services has shifted far too far towards data sharing, meaning that young people will be less likely to engage with the existing services that protect them. At the same time, the Scottish Association of Social Workers is saying that its members are increasingly concerned about the very low threshold for intervention in family life. Is it not time that the named person plans were scrapped?
No. I absolutely and fundamentally disagree. Information sharing should always be appropriate, and it should always be proportionate to concerns about wellbeing. Over probably the past 20 years, reports on significant case reviews into the deaths of children show that, very often, a key weakness in protecting those children was the failure to share information about the child’s wellbeing.
The court’s decision on the judicial review of the named person plans makes clear that the provisions in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 on information sharing are entirely lawful and do not contravene the Data Protection Act 1998 or the ECHR. The court’s finding on the Data Protection Act 1998 is consistent with advice from the Information Commissioner’s Office. We will continue to work with the Information Commissioner’s Office and with stakeholders on clear guidance on how to fulfil the obligations to share information in the circumstances set out in the 2014 act.
What I said about proportionality is important. Young people will, in many circumstances, seek to take advice or share information confidentially, and we need to ensure that they are able to do that. Although none of us—whatever position we hold—can give absolute guarantees in that respect, I am sure that I speak for all of us when I say that none of us wants, in the years to come, to read further reports into the death of a child where lack of information sharing put that child at greater risk.
We will continue to act appropriately and in a way that puts the wellbeing of all children absolutely at the heart of decision making.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. Ruth Davidson, in her first question to the First Minister, stated that the Education and Culture Committee had published a report on attainment. That statement is untrue. The Education and Culture Committee wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning to seek the Government’s views on a number of questions raised by submissions to the committee’s inquiry into attainment. Ruth Davidson went on to strongly suggest that the committee had taken a view and in fact had reached conclusions on those submissions to our inquiry. That is also untrue.
How can a member get the record corrected so that Ruth Davidson does not tell the chamber something that is frankly untrue on at least two points?
The convener of the Education and Culture Committee has raised some questions. I will go away and reflect on the issues that he has raised and come back later in the session.
Ms Davidson, do you wish to say something?
I would happily respond to the convener of the Education and Culture Committee, and I take this opportunity to do so and have it recorded.
I made it clear in my exchange with the First Minister that it was a letter. I even said that I had a copy of the letter here—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear Ms Davidson.
I am happy to read directly from it. It says:
“There is clearly a desire for improvements to be made to our education system in order to ensure that far more pupils leave school and achieve a good outcome, be that a job, or further education that leads to a job. It is not clear, however, the extent to which the efforts underway and the further improvements suggested will serve to narrow”
the gap in attainment.
Ms Davidson, that is not a point of order. I can read the Official Report as well as anybody. I said that I will go away and reflect on the matter, and I will come back.
Previous
General Question Time