Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02803)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Earlier this week, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning put her hands up and admitted that, after eight years of Scottish National Party Government, the attainment gap between children from deprived areas and those from wealthy areas shows no sign of closing. Perhaps there is a new willingness from the SNP to come clean about its education failures; let us put that theory to the test. In the chamber on 13 May, Angela Constance said:
“For the record, it is important to recognise that there has been no reduction in bursaries.”—[Official Report, 13 May 2015; c 12.]
For the record, will the First Minister confirm whether the amount of money that is spent on bursaries and grants in Scotland has gone up or down since the SNP took office in 2007?
I say first to Kezia Dugdale that no issue is more important to me or to the Government than our education system. I will not hold back from being open about where improvements are needed, but equally I will not hold back from challenging those who seek to paint an inaccurate picture of Scottish education, because that does a disservice to the achievements of young people and teachers across the country.
Kezia Dugdale says that the gap between those in the most deprived communities and those in the least deprived communities is growing, but that is not true. If we look at qualifications, for example, we see that fewer pupils are leaving school with no qualifications now than was the case in 2007, and more pupils are leaving school with not just one, two or three highers, but four, five, six or more highers. That is not just true overall—it is also true for those in the most deprived parts of the country.
There is work to do in our education system, and I make no bones about that, but I will not allow any politician in any party to traduce the achievements of our pupils.
To come to the specific question about bursaries, I think that it was—[Interruption.]
Order.
I think that it was the National Union of Students that some time ago described the support package for students in Scotland as the best in the United Kingdom. That support package is a mixture of loans and bursaries, but it stands comparison with the packages in other parts of the UK.
In this area, as in all other areas of education policy, I will stand on this Government’s achievements, but I will openly and honestly say that, where more work is needed, the Government will not shy away from doing it.
I asked the First Minister specifically about bursaries and grants. The reality is that, since the SNP took office in 2007, bursaries and grants for students have been slashed by £40 million. That is £40 million less for students who have the talent to get on in life but who do not have the financial resources of their better-off peers. There are thousands of working-class kids who have the grades to be nurses, engineers and doctors but who cannot get the extra support that they need unless they borrow more.
How does that compare with the situation elsewhere? Can the First Minister tell members which country in the United Kingdom provides the lowest level of bursaries for low-income students?
At last week’s First Minister’s question time, Kezia Dugdale inadvertently—I assume—misrepresented the position that she was trying to put forward on qualifications. I fear that she is doing the same today, because what matters to students is the support package that is provided.
The reality is that the Government has exceeded the manifesto commitment that we made to support the poorest students by ensuring a minimum income of £7,500 in maintenance support for students, because there was a 24 per cent increase in the value of the average support package between 2012-13 and 2013-14, up from £4,320 in 2012-13. In addition, the average student loan debt for Scottish students is lower than the average debt of students in England, in Wales and in Northern Ireland.
On all those measures, we are delivering on the commitments that we made to the poorest students in our society. Perhaps that is why we can stand here and say that, as I said last week, we have not just met but exceeded our commitment to maintaining full-time equivalent numbers in our colleges and are starting to see an increase in the number of students from the most deprived communities in Scotland going to university. That number is not good enough, though, which is why we have set up our widening access commission.
This Government will unashamedly defend the achievements not just of the Government but of students, pupils and teachers across our country, but we will also be open to where we need to do better. [Interruption.]
Order.
One of the issues that I am sure the widening access commission will look at is how we further and better support students—particularly those from our most deprived areas—so that they can take full advantage of the excellent education services that we provide.
That might have been a speech but it certainly was not an answer. [Applause.]
Order.
Oh, they are all back together again.
Order, Mr Swinney.
I have never heard the First Minister be so reluctant to say the word “Scotland”. That is the answer: under the SNP, it is Scotland that has the lowest level of bursaries and grants in the whole United Kingdom. The SNP knows that because it was embarrassed into making an announcement about it last week, but the Government announced only an extra £2.40 a week. The idea that that will transform things is laughable; it is not enough money to get from here to Heriot-Watt University and back—it is a disgrace.
In 2007, the SNP campaigned on a manifesto to wipe out student debt. I have the leaflet here, which says on the back:
“Student debt. It’ll lurk around your home like a bad smell on the landing.”
Well, it is clearly lurking around the SNP Government. Can the First Minister confirm whether student debt has gone up or down under the SNP?
I appreciate that Kezia Dugdale did not like the detailed answer that I gave her. [Interruption.]
Order. [Interruption.] Wheesht!
However, that is no reason for me not to continue to fulfil the duty that I have in the chamber to give detailed answers, even if they do not suit the political purposes of the Scottish Labour Party. In my previous answer, I addressed specifically the issue of student loan debt. In 2014, the average student loan debt for Scottish students was £7,600, compared with an average in England of £20,100.
Members: Oh!
In Northern Ireland, the debt was £16,820 and, perhaps most significant of all, in Wales, where there is a Labour Government, average student loan debt was £17,310.
Members: Oh!
Of course, I look to the Government that I lead to continue to make improvements and do better—I expect nothing less—but, if I was a student in Scotland, I think that I would prefer to be in Scotland, with average student loan debt so much lower than it is anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
I say this to Kezia Dugdale: for the party that introduced tuition fees in Scotland, broke a manifesto commitment by introducing tuition fees in England and broke a manifesto commitment not to introduce top-up tuition fees—it did precisely that—to come to the chamber and talk about student debt is sheer and utter hypocrisy. [Applause.]
Order.
It is interesting that the only people who were clapping at the end of Kezia Dugdale’s last contribution were the Tories. I am reminded of the comments that Michael Dugher, the senior UK Labour figure, made last week about Labour:
“We shouldn’t have been in bed with the Tories. It was a complete ... disaster. It killed us.”
It is about time that Kezia Dugdale and Labour learned a few lessons.
It was the Labour Party that abolished tuition fees in 2001. [Interruption.]
Order.
Members should wait for the answer. [Interruption.]
Order.
It was the Labour Party that abolished tuition fees in 2001, and I say that to the First Minister in the most sincere way, because I was—[Interruption.] I know that SNP members do not like it, but the reality is that I was at university when this Labour Party abolished fees in 2001.
I have the figures here. Far from being dumped, the debt has doubled under the SNP. According to the First Minister’s Government figures, the average debt per student has doubled under the SNP, and a leading education expert says that a student from a low-income background in Scotland now faces debts of up to £27,000. That is the SNP’s record on student loan debt. That figure is more than the average annual salary in Scotland.
In truth, the SNP’s time in office has been a mixture of ups and downs. Student debt is up and student bursaries are down. In the light of the SNP’s new transparent approach on education, when will the First Minister admit that she is letting Scotland’s students down?
I say to Kezia Dugdale that just because she says something in a sincere way, that does not make it true. Labour removed tuition fees from the front end of education and put them on the back end of education. That is not abolishing tuition fees. I know that Labour lives in a parallel universe these days—and given that the real universe for Scottish Labour is a pretty miserable place to be, who can blame it? However, pretending that it abolished tuition fees really takes the biscuit. Perhaps it is insulting the Scottish people’s intelligence in that way that has resulted in Labour being in the dire position that it is in today.
I will continue to do the job that I have got to do in making improvements where we need to do that. That is precisely why we have established the widening access commission to look at how we make it possible for more students from our most deprived areas to go to university.
We will reflect on and implement that commission’s recommendations so that we can build on our achievements and ensure that we serve the students and potential students of this country even better in the future. I make that commitment most sincerely.
Kezia Dugdale might want to describe the SNP’s term in office as being one of ups and downs. If only she could describe Labour’s term in opposition in that way, because it has not been one of ups and downs. It has been one of downs and, if Labour keeps up the performance that we are seeing week after week, it will be going down even further.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-02800)
No current plans.
It seems that we all now agree—including, this week, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning—that our school system is failing too many of our children. We have declining standards in literacy and numeracy and a persistent gap between better-off and worse-off children. Those are simply facts. We know that the education secretary wants to tackle that, but the truth is that we have no idea what she wants to do.
I would like to ask a specific question. In her speech earlier this week, the education secretary said that she was studying Denmark and Ontario to see what lessons could be learned from their education systems. Both have a rigorous system of testing primary school children and younger secondary school children. Does the Scottish Government now support the reintroduction of standardised testing?
Let me deal with the question in a serious way, because it is a serious question. First, I want to correct Ruth Davidson on one point. Although I agree that improvements require to be made in our education system—I have said that consistently every time that the issue has been raised—it is simply not true to say that standards in our education system are falling.
On qualifications gained, for example, I have details of exam passes going back to 2007, covering every decile of the Scottish population. Today, fewer pupils are leaving school with no qualifications than was the case in 2007. As I said to Kezia Dugdale, more people are leaving school with not just one, two or three highers, but four, five, six or more highers. In 2007, 20 per cent of pupils in our most deprived decile left school with at least one higher; the figure is now 33 per cent. That is nowhere near good enough, but it is not true to say that things are not going in the right direction.
There are improvements that require to be made. That is why we have a serious and substantive programme of work under way, which I am personally overseeing along with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning. We have established the attainment challenge, through the £100 million attainment fund, which will initially work with primary schools in seven local authorities, focusing on literacy, numeracy, health and wellbeing. The Scottish Government is currently working with those local authorities to finalise their improvement plans and the detail of how those plans will be monitored and measured. We are in the process of appointing attainment advisers in every local authority area, and we are investing in the read, write, count campaign.
We are also working on a new national performance framework, which brings me substantially to the point that Ruth Davidson made. I do not mind admitting a frustration: I can stand here and give detail on the performance of secondary school pupils in terms of exam passes, but that is much more difficult to do in terms of the performance of primary school pupils because of a lack of data. I want to address that, and I want do to so in a serious, proportionate and well-thought-out way. That is the work that is under way in the Scottish Government, and the Parliament will, of course, be kept fully updated.
Among that litany of exam results, we did not get an acknowledgement that the biannual literacy testing this year shows that standards in literacy are down, and that the biannual numeracy testing last year shows that standards are down.
Since the First Minister came into post, we have heard a lot about how much she is listening, how nothing is off the table and how people can bring forward ideas and she will look at things. That is wearing a bit thin, because we need some decisions and we need a plan.
Last year, Audit Scotland told us that there is no rigorous method in Scotland of assessing children’s standards because some councils do it and some councils do not. Its report states:
“At a council level, there is no consistent approach to tracking and monitoring the progress of pupils from P1 to S3.”
That means that after eight years of this Government, until someone’s child is 14 years old, they have no clear idea how good their child’s education is in comparison with education in the rest of the country. It is no wonder that the Scottish Government does not know what to do, because it does not know what is going on.
We need a new system of primary testing, exactly like Denmark and Ontario, so that we can all see which schools need help and which schools are leading the way. Frameworks are fine, but enough is enough: will the Scottish Government get on and introduce primary testing?
In much of that question, Ruth Davidson simply repeated what I had already said in answer to her first question. I openly acknowledge that, although we have, through exam passes, a wealth of data about the performance of secondary school pupils, we do not have that same data on primary school pupils. She then went on to overstate the case by saying that parents have no idea how their children are doing in primary schools.
Ruth Davidson is also wrong to say that there has been no acknowledgement of the fact that in the recent Scottish survey of literacy and numeracy, standards in literacy and numeracy show a decline. I have openly acknowledged that and said very clearly that it is not acceptable. That is what we are now working to improve: a serious and substantial programme of work is under way.
I am not, though, simply going to give Ruth Davidson a yes or no answer or jump to making decisions before we have properly considered what the right thing to do is. We need a new national performance framework, but we must ensure that the data that we are collecting and the way in which we are collecting it are right, proportionate and sensible. We are considering those issues at the moment, and I and the education secretary look forward to updating Parliament very soon on the direction in which we want to go.
I have said repeatedly in the chamber—and I am going to say it again today—that I appreciate that the Opposition parties will want to be political about the issue. I accept that, but I am determined to make the improvements in our education system that require to be made. I, Angela Constance and the entire Government are going to roll up our sleeves and do the hard work that needs to be done to do right by the young people of Scotland. I make no apology to anyone for that.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02799)
Matters of importance to the people of Scotland, no doubt including some of the issues that we have just been discussing.
I am pleased that the First Minister accepts that attainment in literacy and numeracy is falling in Scotland on her watch, but it is the responsibility of everyone in the chamber to bring forward ideas for change. When we argued for an expansion in early learning and childcare, the Government opposed our proposals, but we eventually won it round. However, our proposals for a pupil premium have been repeatedly dismissed as unnecessary by successive education ministers, who have been happy to argue that everything is fine. Now that it is clear that everything is not fine, will the First Minister finally agree to introduce the pupil premium in Scotland?
If Willie Rennie or any other member in this chamber puts forward ideas for improving our education system, we will of course consider them. However, I say to Mr Rennie that per-pupil spending in Scotland in our primary and secondary schools is already higher than it is in England, where the pupil premium has been introduced, and that it has increased under this Scottish National Party Government.
We need to do a number of things and—as I said to Kezia Dugdale and Ruth Davidson—it really is incumbent on Opposition politicians that they do not, in the process of seeking rightly to hold the Government to account, deny the achievements of our education system. It is simply not true to paint a picture of a system that is universally failing. As I have demonstrated with reference to exam statistics, the opposite is the case. On literacy and numeracy, however, we acknowledge that improvements are required.
Willie Rennie mentioned the pupil premium, which means increased funding. I have already announced an additional £100 million that is focused on seven local authority areas and, within those areas, on the pupils who live in our most deprived communities. That is us putting our money where our mouth is; we are not only making the investment available, but are ensuring that it is used to deliver the things that will make a difference in our schools. Finally, we are ensuring that we can measure and monitor the difference that is being made so that we know what does and does not work. That is the kind of systematic, robust and rigorous way in which we will go about this. I hope that we can persuade others to come on side with us. We will, of course, continue to listen to any ideas that are put forward.
I am disappointed that the First Minister will not accept the idea, because in England the pupil premium has closed the gap in attainment for primary school children. It allows for the one-to-one tuition, books, equipment and targeted support that children from disadvantaged backgrounds need. The First Minister talks about the Scottish Government attainment fund, but it is limited to seven out of 32 council areas, while the pupil premium is for the whole country. Will she accept the case that the pupil premium closes the attainment gap and agree that it should be introduced in Scotland?
I am talking about a £100 million attainment fund that is focused on the local authority areas that have, as I think everyone will accept, the biggest concentrations of people living in our most deprived communities. It might well be—we are actively considering this—that some of the money will go to other local authorities that have clusters of deprivation in particular areas, but surely we are right, having set aside that substantial financial investment, to focus it exactly where it is needed most so that we can drill down to where the problems are and ensure that we take a rigorous approach to making and monitoring improvements. I am absolutely determined that we will focus on that.
We will not close our minds to ideas that are brought forward—of course we will consider them—but we have put in place a serious and substantial programme of work and we are determined to get on with implementing it. That is what parents and teachers across the country expect and that is what they will get from this Government.
Trident Nuclear Submarines (Safety)
To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the safety of Trident nuclear submarines. (S4F-02802)
The Scottish Government has made clear its opposition to Trident nuclear weapons, and our concern about the risks that they pose. However, the Ministry of Defence does not discuss the operation of its Vanguard-class submarines with the Scottish Government.
Recent allegations from a whistleblower that highlight a catalogue of safety breaches and security lapses are of grave concern. The UK Government must fully investigate those allegations without delay, explain any failings that have been highlighted and set out, as far as it can, precisely what has been done to address each one. People across Scotland, and indeed across the UK—not least those who live and work at or around the naval base on the Clyde—must be given answers to the very serious allegations that have been raised.
Many people are indeed concerned, following revelations in nuclear engineer William McNeilly’s 18 page report “The Nuclear Secrets”, which came to light last Sunday. Does the First Minister agree that, while the Royal Navy is denying a host of allegations, ranging from fire risks to near sinking and collision with another submarine, a full and comprehensive safety review is merited and should take place with immediate effect? Do such concerns not make it clear that ensuring public safety is yet another reason why it would be folly to squander billions of pounds on renewing Trident?
Public safety must always be the top priority. As I have said, we need a top-level inquiry into the allegations that have been made; any potential safety or security failings of the Trident nuclear weapons system are an extremely grave matter. The Scottish Government has long opposed the existence of those weapons, but we have also in the past raised operational and safety concerns.
The allegations that have been made over the past few days are all the more troubling because they have been made by a member of defence personnel and must therefore be treated with all the seriousness that they deserve. Only the fullest possible assurance from the UK Government about the safety of its arrangements is now acceptable.
However, we should also be very clear that the only certain way to remove the risk of an incident involving Trident nuclear weapons is through the withdrawal of Trident nuclear weapons. In my view, the UK Government should cancel its irresponsible plans to spend £100 billion on renewing those weapons of mass destruction and begin now to plan for their removal.
Living Wage
To ask the First Minister what progress the Scottish Government is making on increasing the number of companies and organisations paying the living wage. (S4F-02804)
The Scottish Government has provided funding to the Poverty Alliance to promote the living wage and increase the number of accredited employers in Scotland. The Poverty Alliance’s work resulted in the achievement of the original target of 150 wage accredited employers eight months early and it is now working towards a new target of 500 accredited employers by the end of March next year.
This week’s “BBC Scotland Investigates” documentary showed the heartbreaking impact of low pay on people’s lives. The responsibility for setting the national minimum wage is of course reserved to the UK Government, but this Government can do much, much more now to address low pay. With only 10 out of 50 of Scotland’s largest employers paying the living wage, will the First Minister publish an action plan to set out how her Government intends to use the powers that it has to raise the incomes and living standards of Scottish workers?
I am not going to set out an action plan; I am going to continue to ensure that we take the actions that we have already agreed need to be taken. We need less talk and more action on things such as this.
We have funded the Poverty Alliance. That campaign has already delivered 200 living wage accredited employers; on Monday, BrewDog was confirmed as the 200th. That is a significant increase since this time last year and it shows that employers from every sector of the economy recognise the importance of ensuring that working people are receiving a fair level of pay. We will now support the Poverty Alliance to reach that new target of 500 accredited employers. We will also continue to lead by example as a living wage employer. We will take that action with our subcontractors, too, and encourage other public authorities to do the same.
I agree with Neil Findlay about how upsetting it was to watch the documentary that he refers to. I passionately believe that people deserve to earn a living wage when they do a decent day’s work. We in this Government will continue to do everything that we can to ensure that that is the case.
Modern Apprenticeships (Disabled People)
To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to allow more disabled people to access modern apprenticeships. (S4F-02801)
That is an important issue. The number of disabled people accessing modern apprenticeships is disproportionately low, so addressing an underrepresentation is a key Government priority.
Through the funding that we provided last year, Skills Development Scotland is working with Barnardo’s and Remploy on specific early-targeted pathway projects to help disabled young people into a modern apprenticeship. We are also undertaking research to better understand the issues that prevent disabled people from participating in the programme. That work will be used to develop an equalities action plan by autumn 2015. It will be supported by £500,000, which was announced last week, to address equality issues in the modern apprenticeship programme.
Many public bodies and companies benefit greatly from employing disabled people. What can the Government do to persuade more employers that taking on young people with learning and physical difficulties as apprentices could be not only positive for the employees but highly advantageous for their companies?
First, we should encourage employers to see—as many do—the enormous contribution that people with disabilities can make to the workplace, to society and to our wider economy. More particularly, we are developing a new employer recruitment incentive, which will support vulnerable young people, including those with a disability. The incentive is aimed at supporting young people into sustainable employment, and encouraging and equipping small businesses to recruit young modern apprentices into their workforce.
We are also going to identify a lead body to support recruitment of young disabled people, to develop a new work experience model and to introduce an improved approach to career services. All that is detailed in the developing our young workforce implementation plan.
Kevin Stewart raises a serious issue, and it is one that we are determined to address.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The party leaders’ exchanges in this First Minister’s question time took 25 minutes. Therefore, there was not an appropriate opportunity for back benchers to participate in FMQs and hold the Government properly to account. I ask you to use your offices to ensure that the party leaders’ exchanges take up an appropriate length of time. I encourage the First Minister to restrict—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear Mr Kelly.
I encourage the First Minister to restrict her contributions to answers rather than speeches.
Thank you for that point of order. Mr Kelly. I always have the interests of back benchers at heart. I will look very carefully at the party leaders’ exchanges today. It certainly seemed as though they were quite long. Once I review that, I will do what I normally do, Mr Kelly. I will speak to you and all the other business managers about how we can better manage next week’s First Minister’s questions.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Fire Sprinklers