Official Report 486KB pdf
Charities (Closures)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that more than 1,000 Scottish charities are closing every year. (S6T-02674)
The third sector plays a vital role in supporting communities across Scotland, and we recognise the pressures that it is facing. We are committed to fairer funding and we have launched a multiyear funding pilot that is worth £130 million over 2025-27, which builds on areas where multiyear funding was already established.
All arms of Government have a responsibility to ensure the sustainability of the sector. We continue to work constructively within the Scottish Government with the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, and we will carefully consider its proposals. We also continue to press the United Kingdom Government to reconsider its decision to increase employer national insurance contributions for the third sector and for recompense following those changes.
State funding has gone down by 5 per cent since 2021, at a cost of about £177 million. The rise in employer national insurance contributions has cost the sector £78 million. At a time when demand for support from the voluntary sector is rising, it is unsustainable to expect the voluntary sector to fund the shortfall.
Taking this essential sector for granted will be devastating for families and communities across Scotland. Will the Government commit to providing the funding that is necessary to support those charities, which are lifelines for families and communities across the whole of Scotland?
I agree with some of Alexander Stewart’s points about the important work that the third sector does across Scotland, and in all our communities, on a variety of issues.
I held a round-table meeting with third sector representatives during the summer so that we could talk about the challenges that they face—in the short, medium and long term—and work together to devise solutions. Some of those solutions will be in the gift of the Scottish Government and others will lie elsewhere, but, as I said at that round table, I am committed to working with the SCVO and others from the third sector to find a way through their challenges.
Alexander Stewart is quite right to point out that, for many in the third sector, demand for their services is increasing. That points to the important role that they play, and that is exactly why the Scottish Government is determined to work with them to ensure that we can support the third sector in everything that it does.
A joint letter from 240 charities, including the Scottish Huntington’s Association, not only highlights why there are so many alarming closures but sets out some solutions—an immediate cash injection, a medium-term recovery plan and a commitment for multiyear funding, with uplifts that reflect inflation.
Will the cabinet secretary commit to implementing those measures? Does she accept that those organisations will otherwise face an uncertain future?
The exact reason why I have had the many discussions that I have had—most recently the round-table discussion that I mentioned—is so that we can talk about what the Government could do.
Alexander Stewart is also well aware—because we met, I think, just last week—of the importance of the work that I undertake on behalf of the Government on child poverty as well as on the third sector. I discussed with him the importance of the process that we are about to embark on for our next Scottish Government budget.
He makes a number of requests for the Scottish Government to deliver higher funding for the third sector. I look forward to working with him when he brings forward costed proposals for, I presume, not just my portfolio but other portfolios, given that the third sector covers every part of Government and, therefore, every portfolio. When I receive a costed proposal, which I am sure will arrive on my desk during the budgetary discussions, I look forward to getting into that detail with him.
Is not the real story here the increase in national insurance contributions for employers? As an example—I declare an interest as a member of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals—that increase will cost the Scottish SPCA £400,000 extra every year. Is that not the real story of why charities are in such difficulties?
Christine Grahame is absolutely right to point out the challenge that third sector organisations faced when they were, quite frankly, blindsided by the UK Government. Only a matter of days after many third sector organisations were invited to Downing Street to discuss a covenant and an agreement with the third sector, they found out about the increase in employer national insurance contributions. My understanding is that the impact of that on the third sector in Scotland will be around £75 million. The Scottish SPCA, which Christine Grahame mentioned, is part of that—it is also suffering from those challenges.
That is exactly why I said in my first answer that we in the Scottish Government will do what we can and work with the third sector. That other arm of Government must do the same and must respond to the criticism that it has quite rightly received for the very difficult circumstances in which it has placed the third sector.
Commission on School Reform (Recommendation)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the recommendation made by the commission on school reform report, “Behaviour in Schools”, that teachers should be able to suspend or exclude pupils who exhibit persistent behaviour issues. (S6T-02680)
We all want our schools to be safe places for children and young people to learn in and for our staff to work in. Our national guidance on preventing and managing exclusions and our recent guidance on consequences are clear that exclusion is an option that is open to schools where that is appropriate. Exclusion should be the last resort and, when used, it should be as a proportionate response where there is no appropriate alternative.
Exclusion alone is unlikely to lead to behavioural change, and therefore the space provided by exclusions should be used to develop a plan to provide appropriate support to address the child’s behaviour.
I agree with much of that. It must be clear that schools have the right to exclude or suspend pupils, but councils also have a responsibility to provide support and education for pupils when they are out of school. The big question is whether the minister is confident that that is actually happening in local authorities and schools.
The member is absolutely correct that schools and teachers in particular have the right and the power to exclude or suspend children and young people because of behaviour. We have been working closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on our national action plan on behaviour and relationships. That plan is jointly owned by the Scottish Government and local government, which is imperative because, as the plan sets out, local government holds the statutory responsibility for the delivery of education. I have been really clear in my engagement with local government on that. Further, earlier this year, Councillor Tony Buchanan and I wrote to all directors of education to ensure that the action plan is making a difference at the chalk face. The points that Mr Rennie has rightly raised this afternoon are being addressed by local government.
The commission on school reform is heavily critical of the guidance that the minister has just referred to. The commission’s report states that the guidance
“has not reassured teachers”,
that it
“has provoked widespread public criticism”,
and that it is
“fundamentally misguided.”
The cabinet secretary often seeks the advice of the commission on school reform, so will she take its advice today and issue new national guidance that clearly asserts the right of every young person to an education that is not disrupted by others and that recognises that dealing effectively and quickly with bad behaviour requires sanctions?
I often engage with the commission on school reform and I listen to it intently, and I am more than happy to give a commitment today that I will continue to do that on this issue.
I remind Mr Rennie that the guidance did not come from me as cabinet secretary or from officials; it came from the teaching profession. It was an ask from the teaching profession on the back of the behaviour in Scottish schools research, and we responded to that ask with very clear national guidance. The bodies that were involved in the commissioning of the published guidance were the Educational Institute of Scotland, the NASUWT, School Leaders Scotland, educational psychologists and local authorities. I ask Mr Rennie to reflect on the fact that the guidance has come from the profession and has been written by the experts in our classrooms.
I am, of course, more than happy to listen to the commission on a range of educational issues. Its report, which is relatively short—I think that it is seven or eight pages in length—cites a number of things. For example, it talks about support for teachers not being as strong as it has been in the past. That is an international trend that we have seen across Europe and the world post-pandemic, whereby the role of the teaching profession has diminished somewhat. It is really important that we work with our teaching trade unions and others, including the commission, on how we can help to restore the relationship between school and home. The report goes on to talk about some of the challenge in that regard. I give a commitment to Mr Rennie that I will engage with the commission on the substantive points in its report.
The behaviour of children and young people does not become unacceptable overnight. Does the cabinet secretary agree that factors such as wider societal impacts, poverty and deprivation do not help when it comes to behaviour in the classroom and that they can create many of the challenges? Will the cabinet secretary provide further details of the continued work to narrow the poverty-related attainment gap and how that contributes to pupils having a more positive classroom experience?
I note that the report, quite rightly, makes a number of references to the pandemic and its impact on behaviour and relationships, but the impact of poverty seems to be omitted. Austerity has harmed the outcomes of some of Scotland’s most vulnerable families, including children.
Previously, I have spoken about the normalisation of food banks and clothing banks in our schools. Our teachers are stepping up to meet what is now a societal need, but they should not have to do so. That is one of the reasons why I have commissioned independent advice on school funding, which is being led by John Wilson, a very experienced former headteacher. He will look at, for example, what comes next after the Scottish attainment challenge and the pupil equity fund. I encourage all members to engage with Mr Wilson’s review and to contribute their ideas accordingly.
Let me take a different tack with the cabinet secretary. Will she now accept the report’s call to reassert parental responsibility, as set out in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, so that schools are not left to carry the burden alone and parents are made to feel accountable for supporting discipline and their children’s regular attendance?
Mr Kerr and I have debated that issue on many occasions. He talked about parental responsibility and accountability, which he is quite right to do, and his points are not at odds with our national guidance. It is not only mums and dads who have a role to play. I spent the weekend with my five-year-old niece, and aunties, uncles and the extended family also have a role in the teaching of behaviours.
One of the other points that the report makes is that it cannot always be about only the school. We need wider consideration of support for the behaviours that we think are appropriate in our schools. The reassertion of parental responsibility is not necessarily at odds with the current national guidance, but I am happy to engage with Mr Kerr on the substantive point that he has made today.
Care-experienced pupils are six times more likely to be excluded than others, and that does not count informal exclusions that are due to part-time timetabling. How does that reconcile with the stated aims of the cabinet secretary’s behaviour plan for a calm and consistent education, and what specific interventions will she implement to ensure that care-experienced young people have access to the education that they deserve?
I am conscious that there is a read-across between my responsibilities as cabinet secretary and my being recused from the Promise because my wife sits on the oversight board, which engages with the issue of support for care-experienced young people. I will ask the Minister for Children, Young People and the Promise, if she is content to answer the substantive point, to write directly to Pam Duncan-Glancy.
More broadly, we know from the chief inspector of education’s school reports that there is an increasing reliance on a differentiated approach to timetabling. That might be in place for lots of good reasons, but it is important that the educational needs of all children and young people, including those who are care experienced, are met.
The cabinet secretary has stated that the findings come from the profession. I agree, and one of the most concerning aspects of the findings is that—this is what teachers say—the current national guidance “disempowers teachers”.
Does the cabinet secretary accept that and does she accept that there is an association between falling standards, poor attendance and poor behaviour? Does she think that the plans that the Scottish Government has set out will turn the situation around?
I accept that, in education, there will always be a range of different views on what the Government undertakes. To give the member an alternative view, the NASUWT said that the guidance
“has the potential to support positive improvement in managing pupil behaviour in schools.”
Mike Corbett of the NASUWT said:
“We have been actively engaged in working with the government to produce this guidance and its publication is an important step forward in our continued focus on driving down levels of disruption”.
As a Government, we have to work in partnership with our teaching trade unions. I accept that there is a range of views on the issue, but the teaching unions have broadly welcomed the guidance. To go to the point that Mike Corbett has consistently raised with me, it is now imperative that the guidance informs better practice in our schools. I will continue to work with COSLA to that end.
That concludes topical question time.
Previous
Business Motion