Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02815)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
For months, teachers have been telling Scottish National Party ministers about problems with the new national examinations. In February, teachers told the Parliament that there could be a catastrophe and headteachers warned of a disaster. They asked to delay the new highers, but ministers chose to ignore those warnings.
Last week, it all ended in tears—the tears of pupils trying to sit higher mathematics, which has widely been condemned as flawed and too difficult. More than 17,000 pupils and parents have signed a petition in protest. What has the First Minister done about it?
The picture that Kezia Dugdale seeks to paint of our exams is unfair. It is unfair to pupils who are studying hard right now for those exams. The annual exam diet is a tense time for students and their parents. Young people work hard throughout the year and they do not deserve that kind of characterisation of the system.
We are aware of concerns that have been expressed about the recent higher mathematics exam and we take them seriously. The Scottish Qualifications Authority is responsible for ensuring that exams are set clearly and to the correct standards. It is also responsible for ensuring that rigorous processes are in place to give candidates fair treatment every year and maintain standards. The SQA has assured us—and, more important, the people of Scotland—that no candidate will be disadvantaged if any exam paper is proven to be more demanding than it was intended to be.
That is why the processes are in place. They are in place every year and they exist to make sure that our students who work so hard get the best treatment, because that is what they deserve.
With respect, I am bringing to the chamber the concerns of teachers and parents.
The First Minister is right that the SQA has said that it will change the pass mark, but changing the pass mark can help only candidates who tried the questions. Those who were too upset to complete the exam or who spent too long trying to interpret the questions will get no benefit.
That was the SQA’s answer; I asked what the First Minister is doing about the situation. The minister
“‘is perfectly happy to sit back and allow the Scottish Qualifications Authority to attract all the accusations and criticism ...’ It was the minister who forced the authority to introduce the new examination”
and the minister
“should have been able to prevent such a ‘deplorable outcome’”. [Interruption.]
I hear that the SNP back benchers are not happy with that, but those are not my words—they are the words of Nicola Sturgeon when she was shadow education minister back in the last SQA crisis. Does the First Minister agree with Nicola Sturgeon that politicians should stop passing the buck?
Kezia Dugdale is referring to the episode under the previous Labour Government—[Interruption.]
Order.
—when there was a comprehensive failure of the administration of the exam system. What we are talking about here is the content of the exam paper for a particular subject. I am sure—at least, I hope—that Kezia Dugdale is not seriously suggesting that the First Minister or any other politician should set or mark the exams that our young people sit.
The SQA’s responsibility is to ensure that exams are set to the correct standard. It has given assurance that the live question paper for the maths exam was designed according to the course assessment specification for higher maths. It was developed by experienced teachers, and both the current and the new higher maths papers were overseen by the same principal assessor.
More important, as I said in my original answer, the SQA issued a statement last week that makes it clear that it has in place not new processes to take account of the situation but standard processes to moderate results each year if a paper proves to be unexpectedly difficult or easy. The point of that is to ensure that consistent standards are maintained year on year.
The SQA has emphasised that no candidate will be disadvantaged if this year’s exam is proven to be too difficult. It has also said, as I assume that Kezia Dugdale knows, that it will take account of the distress felt by pupils sitting the exam who thought that it was more difficult than they expected it to be.
Those are the processes that are in place to ensure that we have a consistent—and a consistently high—standard in our exam system. It is right that that is overseen by the professional SQA. I assume that that assurance is positive for Kezia Dugdale and, more important, parents and the public across the country to hear.
We are talking about the prospects of thousands of children across Scotland. In January, I alerted the First Minister to the SQA’s appeals system not being fit for purpose. Access to the system depends on a school’s ability to pay, and appeals have been replaced by reviews and re-marks, which take no account of the circumstances on exam day.
Parents in private schools are paying for a second mark of their children’s exams. They can even pay extra for a priority review—that costs just £39.75, as advertised on the SQA website. The appeals system is about to be tested to destruction by this year’s higher maths exam. It has been four months since I raised the issue. Has the First Minister done anything to fix that unfair and unjust system?
The implication that lies behind Kezia Dugdale’s question—that better-off parents can somehow buy better exam results for their children—is simply not true. The SQA introduced its new post-results service in 2014 to replace the former appeals system. The new service is the result of wide-ranging consultation among the SQA, schools, colleges and other education professionals, who all recognised that a review of the appeals service was required. The new service was introduced precisely so that a fairer and more rigorous system would be in place.
I say in all sincerity to Kezia Dugdale that the issues are important. I do not for a second deny or demur from that point. However, it is not fair to pupils around the country to come here with particular concerns such as the concern over the higher maths paper, which has been and will be addressed by the Scottish Qualifications Authority, and to suggest somehow that our entire exams system is flawed. Why is that not fair? Because it undermines the efforts—and is in danger of undermining the results—of those students who have worked so hard to achieve exam passes.
When issues are raised by pupils and parents, as was the case with the maths exam, they will be addressed and responded to. We will do that responsibly; we will do that while wishing all the students across the country who are still sitting exams the very best of success.
The First Minister questions the unfairness. Perhaps I can remind her of what Larry Flanagan said when I last brought the matter up:
“Appeals should be based upon the professional judgment of teachers rather than on the wishes of the parent and what is now happening is fundamentally wrong.”
There are serious concerns, which the First Minister should reflect on.
We heard this week that 25 per cent of medical students come from private schools. Some of the pupils who have been defeated by this unfair exam in maths, and those sitting chemistry today, might have been hoping to change that. They are afraid that their chance could be gone, and so are their parents. [Interruption.] SNP back benchers are guffawing, but here are a couple of quotes.
Chloe Thomson from Hawick said:
“I have studied very hard all year in preparation for my exams in the hope of attaining 5As in order to apply to university to study medicine, this dream now seems completely out of reach due to the awful maths exam that I endured yesterday.”
Allana McCrone from Dumfries said:
“My son studied hard for this exam, he came home devastated afterwards and this has added extra stress to him he still has exams to sit.”
The First Minister took two pages of the Daily Record this week to tell us how well she was served by the education system. Perhaps she should worry more about what is happening in our schools today.
The appeals system and the new exams need sorted out. The First Minister said that education is her “sacred responsibility”. Surely it is time for some divine intervention from the First Minister.
It is clear that Kezia Dugdale was not listening to a word that I said in my earlier answers—or perhaps she was listening but could not change her script to respond. She read out the distressed comments of somebody who sat the higher maths paper. I have huge sympathy for anybody who sits an exam and comes out of it feeling like that, but surely Kezia Dugdale’s responsibility is to relay to that young person the assurances and reassurances that the SQA has given and that I have outlined today.
Let me repeat that no young person sitting the higher maths exam will be disadvantaged if it is found that the exam was more difficult than intended. How can we say that with confidence? Because the SQA has the processes in place every single year to moderate results and take account of the fact that an exam might be found to be easier or harder than was intended. Those systems are in place precisely to protect against the understandable fears that the young person who was quoted expressed. Instead of playing up those fears, surely Kezia Dugdale’s responsibility is to join us in reassuring that young person. That would be more responsible.
In relation to—
Back to the script.
Order.
I do not think that Labour members who are shouting abuse across the chamber are remotely interested in our young people’s fortunes. As always, the top priority of Labour members is simply to hurl abuse at the SNP, and that will not be lost on anyone.
I will come on to the second substantive and important point that Kezia Dugdale raised, which was on the new system for appeals. It is important to emphasise that, as with all SQA charges, local authorities will meet the costs of requests by any public sector schools to use the service. The Association of Directors of Education in Scotland made it clear in a statement back in February that no young person will be disadvantaged under the new system.
Headteachers are clear that decisions are made on an educational basis, not on a cost basis. Ken Cunningham, general secretary of School Leaders Scotland, said:
“The decision to appeal will not be reached based on looking at the books, but on what schools feel is right for their pupils.”
Those are the kinds of assurances that are important for our young people. Instead of trying to scaremonger, Labour should be doing its bit to get those assurances out there.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02817)
No current plans.
The First Minister is meeting parents from the fair funding for our kids programme today. Fair funding for our kids is a campaign group dedicated to ensuring that promises made on childcare are actually delivered.
We spoke to representatives of the group this morning, and they raised the case of a single mum in Glasgow called Marisa. She is working now but, last year, when she tried to get back to work, she had to turn down three separate jobs because she was restricted to three hours of nursery each morning for her four-year-old daughter. For a woman who is trying to get back into the workplace, that is not good enough. She needs to be able to fit nursery hours around the demands of her job, not to have to reject jobs to fit around nursery hours. Parents should be able to take their free nursery hours whenever and wherever they want. Surely the First Minister would agree with that.
Yes, I have a lot of sympathy with that. Ruth Davidson is absolutely right to say that I, with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, will meet representatives from the fair funding for our kids group later this afternoon. It will be the second time that I have met them.
I will be happy to look into the case that Ruth Davidson has cited, but let us put the issue into context. The Government has increased entitlement to childcare for three and four-year-olds by almost half. It has gone up from the 412.5 hours that it was when we took office to 600 hours a year, and we have ambitions to go even further. That commitment is fully funded and uptake is high. Every child is offered a place and there is no evidence to suggest that children are not being offered places.
The substance of the discussions that I will have later with fair funding for our kids is that some parents believe that there is insufficient flexibility and choice in the implementation by local authorities to enable them to take up their entitlement. An example might be a parent who is offered a place at a council nursery that does not suit their working patterns but who cannot get funding in a partnership nursery.
We have given a commitment to look at how to improve the gathering of data so that we can get a better idea of the extent of that particular problem. We will also look at how we work with local authorities to make sure of an increasing level of flexibility and choice in the system. There are examples of good practice around the country, and I commend to Ruth Davidson the examples of the councils in Edinburgh and Dumfries and Galloway, which offer places in any of their partnership nurseries as long as a place is available.
We will continue to look at how we can improve the system, but let me be clear: these issues arise out of an expanding system. They are coming up because we are improving the provision of childcare and we will continue to do that.
Once again we have an acknowledgement of the issue and warm words; we are told that it is someone else’s problem, but there is no clear plan. Having listened to the First Minister just then, I believe that it is no wonder that fair funding for our kids said this morning:
“There is a great deal of smoke and mirrors around ... the free nursery policy ... no-one is on top of how it is being delivered.”
It is certainly not delivering for people like Marisa. As always, it is not the better-off families who are hurt most: it is the single parents or families on low incomes who have no other options.
The 600 hours of childcare is there to help families, but it helps only if they can choose when to take it. Can the First Minister assure us that we have seen enough of the smoke and mirrors and that, when she meets the parents today, she will simply promise to give them something like more flexibility and a real plan for its delivery?
I do not expect the leaders of any of the Opposition parties to listen to my answers and treat them fairly, but any objective person who was listening to the answer that I gave to Ruth Davidson would not have heard me say that it is someone else’s problem. They would have heard me talk in quite some detail about the work that we are seeking to do with councils, which are statutorily responsible for implementing early care. Many parties frequently and wrongly accuse the Government of being centralising, but when we trust local authorities to implement policies, they tell us that we should centralise those responsibilities. Those parties should make up their minds what side they are on.
Ruth Davidson is right that this issue is important to parents in Scotland, the majority of whom are accessing and benefiting from the policy. A small number of parents believe that the system is not sufficiently flexible. We need to understand how many that is, which is why I am committed to further work, but we seek to introduce that greater flexibility on an on-going basis. We have introduced a statutory responsibility on local authorities to consult parents about the required flexibility. As I said, many councils across the country are already delivering the policy in a more flexible way than some others. The work is on-going; we will get on with doing it and let the Opposition carp.
As the First Minister knows, porters at Ninewells hospital are in a long-running pay dispute, because they are being paid less than other porters in NHS Tayside hospitals. This is a matter of fairness, and I should note that the porters are here in Parliament today. Will the First Minister now ask NHS Tayside to bring in the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to resolve this dispute fairly and let the porters get back to work?
First, I take this opportunity to welcome the Tayside porters to the gallery. They are a fantastic bunch of people, and I had the privilege of meeting some of them a few weeks ago at the congress of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. More important, they and porters right across the national health service do an absolutely fantastic job. They are often among the unsung heroes of our health service and, without them, the health service would not be able to deliver the excellent patient care that it does deliver.
As Jenny Marra will be aware, discussions around this particular dispute are on-going. The Scottish terms and conditions committee, which is the appropriate body within the national health service bargaining framework, is involved, has spoken to both sides and has had a number of exchanges over the past two weeks, and I am very hopeful that that process will lead to a resolution. I think that it is right and proper for the process to run its due course, but I am hopeful that it will lead to that successful resolution. I also hope that all of us will join in thanking not just the Tayside porters, but porters everywhere across our national health service.
To relieve Scottish fishermen from the financial burden of new European Union rules on the discarding of fish, Ian Duncan MEP secured a change in EU law, ensuring that the Scottish Government covers the cost of transporting and storing unsellable catch. However, it has emerged from correspondence with the Shetland Fishermen’s Association that Marine Scotland is refusing to foot the bill, despite its new obligation under EU law. Can the First Minister explain why the Scottish Government will not support Scottish fishermen? Furthermore, can she explain why, in not complying with the law, the Scottish Government is willing to pay financial penalties to Brussels that are greater than the cost of supporting the Scottish fishermen in the first place?
Jamie McGrigor has raised what certainly sounds like an important and serious issue, and I undertake to look into it and discuss it with the fishing secretary, who is sitting a couple of rows behind me. We will write to the member with a detailed answer to the question and if, when he receives that detailed explanation, the member wants to meet Richard Lochhead, Richard Lochhead will be very happy to meet him.
The First Minister will be aware of a very serious road accident that occurred last Friday on the A90 at the Laurencekirk south junction in my constituency, and I am sure that she shares my concern for those who have been affected by it. Given that the junction has already been identified as one that needs to be grade separated, can the First Minister give me any assurance on how quickly that will be done?
I am sure that this is the case for everyone across the chamber, but my first thoughts are with the individuals involved in the accident, and I extend my very best wishes to those who were injured for a speedy and full recovery.
The circumstances of the particular accident that the member has highlighted will obviously need to be fully investigated, but he will know that the Scottish Government, working alongside the north east of Scotland transport partnership, Angus Council and Aberdeenshire Council, is examining whether improvements are required to the Laurencekirk junction. Indeed, Transport Scotland is publishing a study next month that will help to inform how access to the junction can be improved, and I know that when that study is published the Minister for Transport and Islands will be very happy to meet Nigel Don to discuss it further.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02814)
Matters of importance to the people of Scotland.
A freedom of information request has found that 350,000 Scottish photographs have been added to the police national database, and the Biometrics Commissioner is concerned about access to that database through new facial recognition technology that does not have any legal underpinning. Does the First Minister agree with the Biometrics Commissioner?
In all of these things, the right balance has to be struck between the need to protect the public and keep communities safe and the need to safeguard the rights of individuals. Police Scotland operates in accordance with human rights and data protection legislation, and Scottish legislation regulates the information that is uploaded by Police Scotland and the length of time that that information is kept for. Legislation also outlines the alignment of case information and associated retention periods for these records. As a result, rules, regulations and safeguards are in place.
As for the facial recognition technology issue that Willie Rennie has raised, he will be aware that, as I certainly understand it, the way in which Police Scotland uses that technology is more restrictive than it is for certain other police forces in other parts of the United Kingdom. Only images of those who are convicted of or arrested and/or charged with an offence will be uploaded to the police national database and only images of those who are convicted will be kept on it. When we look at the balance between the need to protect the public and the important need to protect civil liberties, it strikes me that we have it right in this case. Of course, such things continue to be kept—and, rightly, will always be kept—under review.
My question and concern is not about the retention of the photographs in the database but about the photographs taken to check against the photographs in the database. There are strict rules on taking fingerprints and DNA to check against databases, but the same rules do not apply to the photograph database. The concern relates to people’s privacy if the police can take photographs at football matches and political demonstrations to compare those photographs with the database, using the new technology. Safeguards are in place for fingerprints and DNA, but does the First Minister think that there are adequate safeguards covering photographs?
I am very happy to look at that point in more detail and perhaps correspond or discuss it with Willie Rennie in the future.
I suspect—although these are matters for front-line police officers and those involved in the investigation and detection of crime—that most routinely it will be images from closed circuit television cameras that will be used to try to identify people through the images held on the police national database. I am only speaking personally here, but if I or a member of my family was a victim of an assault in the street, for example, and there were CCTV images of someone who was suspected to be guilty of the assault, I would want those to be used to see whether the perpetrator of the crime could be identified. Let us not lose sight of the purpose and objective of such databases, which is to apprehend criminals and bring them to justice, which is a good thing.
Yes, civil liberties and human rights are important. As technology advances, we have to keep the ways in which we protect those civil liberties under review and we will always do that. I will look at the particular point raised by Willie Rennie and come back to him with more detail once I have had the opportunity to consider it.
Queen’s Speech (Scottish Government’s Response)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the Queen’s speech. (S4F-02823)
The Scottish Government will be a constructive critic of the programme set out in the Queen’s speech. However, the proposals from the Tory Government fail to recognise that Tory policies were roundly rejected by the Scottish electorate earlier this month. Where we disagree with the provisions in the Queen’s speech, we will make our opposition to the plans very clear. We will not support policies that continue with austerity, that put more children at risk of poverty or that put Scotland’s membership of the European Union and our valuable human rights protections at risk.
Does the First Minister share my concerns that the Scotland Bill that was published this morning will not deliver the Smith commission proposals in full, as promised, let alone those pledged in the pre-referendum vow?
The United Kingdom Government had a very clear test today, which was to deliver a bill that lived up in full—in spirit and in letter—to the Smith commission. The bill was published within the last hour or so and, from my glance at it, I think that it falls short in almost every area.
For example, the bill does not contain the full welfare powers recommended by the Smith commission and it retains—unbelievably, given the amount of concern that was expressed—a veto for the UK Government on key policy areas. If, for example, the Scottish Parliament wants to abolish the bedroom tax, as I hope that we do, the UK Government would still have a right of veto over whether we could. I am sorry, but that is not devolution.
I hope that all parties will support us and the recommendations of the all-party Devolution (Further Powers) Committee as we seek to get a Scotland Bill that lives up to and delivers the Smith commission recommendations.
Land and Buildings Transaction Tax and Landfill Tax (Revenue)
To ask the First Minister how much revenue has been raised by the land and buildings transaction tax and the landfill tax since April 2015. (S4F-02821)
Land and buildings transaction tax was successfully introduced by Revenue Scotland on 1 April. Revenue Scotland published its first set of monthly statistics on 21 May, based on returns submitted in April. Those show a successful first month, with more than 7,500 returns received and almost £18 million collected in tax from residential and non-residential property sales.
Those results are in line with our expectations. We are of course in discussion with the United Kingdom Government on the impact of forestalling, for which the UK Government has agreed to compensate us.
Scottish landfill tax is collected quarterly and the first returns from landfill operators are due in August. Revenue Scotland will publish quarterly statistics for Scottish landfill tax from September 2015.
I am sure that even Jackie Baillie will agree that this is an encouraging beginning for Revenue Scotland, which launched on time and on budget.
If one was to look at the overall figures anticipated by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy, one would probably be looking at figures of about £41 million in the first month of operation. I absolutely accept that house buying is seasonal and there was some forestalling, and that the figures may well improve. However, the figures demonstrate the variability of the taxes, which will also be the case for the new tax powers in the Scotland Bill. There is a direct relationship between tax variability and ensuring continued funding for our public services. Given the importance of that relationship, what capacity is the Scottish Government developing to support better forecasting and a robust fiscal framework?
Yes, there is variability, as Jackie Baillie rightly acknowledges. That is why we make predictions on the basis that we do. The early LBTT results are in line with our expectations; we always anticipated a degree of forestalling, which is precisely why the Deputy First Minister is in discussion with the UK Government about how we are compensated for that.
Jackie Baillie’s wider point was that we need to ensure that we have robust information underpinning our modelling and projections. That is precisely why we are taking steps to put the Scottish Fiscal Commission on a statutory footing and why we are making sure that, as we take more responsibility for more tax powers, the Scottish Fiscal Commission is properly equipped to do that very important job.
Scottish Qualifications Authority (Higher Mathematics Examination)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is regarding the concerns expressed by parents and pupils about the recent Scottish Qualifications Authority higher mathematics paper. (S4F-02830)
As I said earlier, we all know that this time of year, with its annual exams, is a tense time for students and their parents, but young people work really hard throughout the year and for many the exams are the culmination of that hard work. We are aware of the concerns expressed about the recent higher maths exam. As I said earlier, the SQA is responsible for ensuring that exams are set fairly and to the correct standards, and it has in place rigorous processes to ensure that candidates get fair treatment.
I listened extremely carefully to the First Minister’s response to Kezia Dugdale’s question. The issue is not so much that the maths higher was seen as particularly hard—which the SQA can address, as the First Minister rightly pointed out—but that the structure of some of the papers and the style of questioning does not appear to be in line with what many schools adopting the new higher had in prelims. Half the schools opted to have the old higher. Does that, combined with the concerns of the criticisms that we have had this past week, reflect deeper concerns about the deployment of exemplar materials for the exams?
It does not necessarily do that, although we will want to study those issues very carefully.
The double running of the old and new highers this year, for one year only, was a result of careful consultation and agreement that that was the right thing to do. Liz Smith rightly acknowledges that processes are in place to moderate results based on the difficulty or otherwise of exams compared with what they are intended to do. Of course, if other issues are raised after the experience of the exam diet this year, the education secretary will raise them with the SQA. I am sure that the SQA would be very happy to meet Liz Smith to discuss those issues in more detail.
Previous
General Question Time