Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02555)
That is, other than the important matter of the tennis.
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland and—fingers crossed—celebrating an Andy Murray victory in the tennis.
On 25 February last year, the schools minister, Alasdair Allan, said that a small minority of pupils would be sitting the old highers this year. This week, we learned that almost half of Scotland’s pupils will be sitting the old higher. What has gone wrong?
Nothing has gone wrong. What has happened is that teachers have been given the flexibility in the timetable for the delivery of curriculum for excellence that I think Kezia Dugdale once asked for. Curriculum for excellence is founded on professional judgment, and it is right that decisions take account of local circumstances. Schools are able to use that flexibility to phase in the new qualifications in the way that best serves the interests of pupils, and when it was given it was warmly welcomed by teacher unions and indeed by Opposition politicians. This is the only year in which dual running of the exams will be permitted but, given the importance of ensuring proper implementation, I had thought that Kezia Dugdale and her colleagues would have welcomed that.
I would have, except that Mike Russell told the chamber:
“I do not believe that any teacher in Scotland who has the right support, the right help and the right leadership ... cannot rise to the challenge and deliver the conclusion of a programme that has been eight years in the making.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2012; c 7003.]
There is concern from parents, teachers and pupils across Scotland, and we know from the past that, when there is a problem in our education system, it is the kids from the poorest backgrounds who suffer the most.
It is worrying that the schools minister clearly did not know what was going on with the highers system. I hope that the First Minister will know what is going on with the appeals system. Last year, the Scottish National Party Government started to charge for exam appeals. Freedom of information responses to the Scottish Labour Party show that, for state pupils, the money for an appeal must come from either the school budget or the council budget, and we all know that money is tight. However, the parents of private school pupils can pay for the appeals themselves. Can the First Minister tell us whether the number of exam appeals from state school pupils has gone up or down in the last year?
Consistency clearly is not Labour’s strong suit this week. On the issue of dual running of exams—[Interruption.]
Order.
Labour has raised an important question for pupils and parents across the country, so let me answer it, but I think that it is worth pointing out that not that long ago—12 September 2014, to be precise—Kezia Dugdale said that the timescale for implementation of the new exams was too fast. She said that the timetable was “ridiculous”. She then cited the introduction of standard grades and said that that had been over 10 years, presumably implying that she thought that that was a more appropriate timescale for the implementation of these new exams. Now that we are seeing teachers and schools using the flexibility that they have rightly been given, Kezia Dugdale turns round and says that the implementation timetable is too slow. That almost puts the hypocrisy on fracking into the shade.
If Kezia Dugdale wants to quote teachers, let me quote Larry Flanagan, the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland. He said:
“This is a sensible approach that will enable teachers to use their best judgement in deciding which option is in the best interests of their pupils.”
If that is what teachers have to say, I do not know why Kezia Dugdale takes a different view.
We have put in place an appeals system that is right and proportionate to give young people the best opportunity to fulfil their potential at school. As I have said previously on this issue and on a range of other subjects, if Kezia Dugdale wants to suggest improvements, I will be willing to listen. However, not for the first time, I will be waiting a long, long time for Labour to come up with anything constructive.
The First Minister wants to quote Larry Flanagan. I can play that game. He said:
“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”.
The First Minister does not have a clue what the answer to my question is, so let me tell her. The reality is that, since the SNP started to charge for appeals, the number of appeals from state school pupils has fallen by 55,000. Even if we factor in the fall in the number of exams, that is a drop of more than 75 per cent in just one year. Good exam results can make the difference between a pupil going to university and a pupil not going to university. For disadvantaged kids in particular, that can be a deal breaker.
Let me ask the First Minister another question. Since the SNP started charging for appeals, has the number of appeals from private schoolkids fallen at a faster or slower rate than the rate by which it has fallen for state school pupils in Scotland?
I am surprised that Kezia Dugdale does not want to focus on what I thought would be the real success story—
This is question time. You don’t write the questions.
Order. Mr Findlay!
I am talking about the success not of Government but of pupils across the country. In 2014, there was a record number of higher passes in Scotland—almost 4,000 more than in 2013.
We are, rightly and properly, introducing curriculum for excellence, a new system of exams and—yes—changes to the way in which appeals are applied for and processed. We will ensure that we respond to the experience of all that, so that we continue to do what we have been doing in each and every year in which we have been in government, which is taking the action that needs to be taken to ensure that our young people get the best possible education and the best possible chance to pass the exams that give them the best possible chance in life. There was a day when Labour would have supported that but, as on so many other issues, Labour has moved beyond and away from its very basic principles.
Once again, the First Minister does not have a clue. The truth is that the proportion of appeals from privately educated pupils is now double the rate for state schoolkids.
The system now favours private school pupils more than ever. Parents of private school pupils can buy their kids a second chance. Parents of private school pupils can put their hands in their pockets to help their kids, but parents of state school pupils cannot do so. It is no wonder that just 220 kids from the poorest backgrounds in Scotland get the grades that they need to make it to our top universities.
The SNP’s record on educational inequality is clear for all to see. Teacher numbers are down by more than 4,000, appeals from state school pupils have plummeted by 55,000, and kids from the poorest backgrounds are being left behind. People in Scotland simply want to know this: is this the fairer Scotland that the First Minister promised?
In fact, in spite of what Kezia Dugdale just said, 18-year-olds from the most disadvantaged areas are more likely to be accepted to university under the SNP. Universities and Colleges Admissions Service stats show that the percentage of 18-year-olds from the most disadvantaged areas accepted to university is up from 6.4 per cent under Labour to 8.9 per cent in 2013—an increase of 2.5 percentage points—[Interruption.]
Order.
Let me say very clearly to the Parliament and to the entire country that I do not think that that is good enough. I want more young people from our most disadvantaged backgrounds to get the same kind of opportunities to go to university as I got as a young person.
That is why in my programme for government I set the goal of increasing the number of people from our most deprived areas who get to go to university. That is why we are working to ensure, first, the best possible school education for our young people—I repeat that we are seeing a record number of higher passes. It is also why my party, unlike the Labour Party, has worked so hard and will continue to work so hard to protect free higher education for our young people. If Labour had its way and introduced tuition fees, it would be a lot harder for our poorest young people to get the chance that I had to go to university.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
I invite the First Minister to join me in congratulating Andy Murray, who has just won his Australian open semi-final in the past few minutes.
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-02552)
I hope that Ruth Davidson was not looking at Twitter in the chamber, Presiding Officer. [Laughter.]
There is the guilty man.
I think that Jackson Carlaw might be in some trouble.
I take the opportunity to congratulate Andy Murray on his semi-final win. I am sure that we can have an outbreak of consensus in the chamber and, on behalf of us all, I wish him all the best for the final on Sunday.
I will meet the Secretary of State for Scotland on Monday, at the oil and gas summit in Aberdeen, when I will take the opportunity to call again on the United Kingdom Government to take immediate action to cut the supplementary charge for the oil and gas sector, instead of waiting seven long weeks until the UK budget is announced.
When the Scottish National Party Government defended its massive cuts to college courses, the then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning said:
“There were, bluntly, too many hobby courses and far too few courses were focused on employment.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2012; c 13426.]
One group of courses is geared specifically towards employment. It comprises STEM courses, which take in science, technology, engineering and maths. Has the number of students on further education STEM courses gone up or down on the SNP’s watch?
Figures show that the vision that we have set for the college sector, which is focused on skills for work and economic growth, is paying dividends. Ruth Davidson rightly says that the changes that we have been making to the college sector are designed to ensure that people who go to college come out of college with qualifications that help them to get into work.
I am happy to discuss with Ruth Davidson any aspects of our approach to colleges that she thinks that we should look to improve—I say that in a genuine spirit of consensus. However, I am proud that we are taking the action—often tough action—that is making college education more productive for our young people.
I asked the First Minister about student numbers. She knows the number that I asked for; she just does not want to say it. Her Government published it this week.
When the SNP came to power, there were more than 86,000 college places in STEM subjects. The most recent figure is just 56,000, which is a cut of 30,000 places in science, technology, engineering and maths. The Government is failing on science and maths. Those are college courses that lead to jobs, and they have been slashed by a third. In schools, less than half of pupils studying science and maths will sit the new exams this year, as we have just heard. In the international tables, on every measurement, Scotland has gone backwards in science and maths since the Government came to power.
Our young people need the skills to compete. Getting a decent job depends on it. Why is the Government failing them?
I am happy to look in detail at the figures that Ruth Davidson has quoted and to respond. [Laughter.]
Order.
Labour clearly finds the issue of education amusing; I find it very serious.
In the year that the most recent available figures cover, approximately 14,000 more students successfully completed courses that lead to recognised qualifications than was the case in 2008-09. That is an increase of 33 per cent. The average number of hours of learning per student is also increasing. In 2006-07, that figure was less than 250 hours, and it is now up to almost 400 hours. Further, as we committed to doing in our manifesto, we have maintained the number of places in Scotland’s colleges.
The number of students who are achieving higher national certificates or diplomas, which are recognised and valued by employers, is up by 36 per cent. The number of students who are getting degrees is up by 121 per cent. That is to be celebrated.
I readily agree that we need to get more girls and women into STEM subjects. I do not take the view that we have done everything that we need to do, but we are doing the hard work to make sure that our colleges are equipped to prepare young people for the workplace, and we will continue to focus on doing that.
Yesterday’s announcement by Tesco that it is closing its Kirkcaldy store is devastating news for the employees and will have a huge impact on the surrounding area. What assistance can the Scottish Government give the 189 employees who face losing their jobs?
My thoughts are with all those who are affected by the announcement that Tesco made yesterday. The Deputy First Minister has spoken to Fife Council about the Kirkcaldy store and given a commitment that the Scottish Government will work with the council to do everything that we can to support affected employees. Partnership action for continuing employment representatives have already contacted Tesco to offer support for employees who might be facing redundancy. Information on PACE has been provided to the company.
We understand that the company will seek to minimise redundancies through the use of redeployment and alternative roles within Tesco. PACE representatives will work with Tesco to provide a tailored package of support to minimise the time that those who are affected by redundancy are out of work.
“Safeguarding Scotland’s vulnerable children from child abuse”
To ask the First Minister what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations in Jackie Brock’s report on closing the gaps in the child protection process. (S4F-02550)
The Government welcomes the Brock report and we have accepted all its recommendations. We are implementing the 12 recommendations, including holding a national strategic leadership summit, which will take place next month.
The report was one strand of a wider programme that seeks to ensure that Scotland’s approach to safeguarding children and young people continues to be as robust as possible. A parliamentary briefing note on the progress of the Scottish Government’s response to the Brock report will be available from the Scottish Parliament information centre today. We will continue to act decisively to implement the report’s recommendations.
The First Minister referred to the summit, but the truth is that Mike Russell promised Parliament that he would hold that summit by the end of last year and it did not happen. Those who have suffered the harrowing experience of child sexual exploitation are owed nothing less than robust and urgent action. Jackie Brock knows that, which is why she has felt moved to express her frustration at the lack of progress by the Scottish Government on taking forward the recommendations in her report. Is it not the case that the Government has taken its eye off the ball on this vital issue? Will the First Minister now commit to taking the decisive action that the survivors of child exploitation expect and which we were promised back in November last year?
That is not true and is not a fair characterisation. The Government and, I am sure, every single member in the chamber are absolutely resolute in their determination to do everything that we need to do to protect children and our most vulnerable children. We have accepted all 12 of the Brock report’s recommendations. The summit that has been referred to will take place next month.
The Brock report was just one strand of a wider programme of work that included the full child sexual exploitation action plan that was published on the same day as the Brock report. That was the result of work that was established in April 2013 and was developed over 19 months by a team of experts including children’s charities, child protection experts, the police and social workers. It drew on a full committee inquiry into the issue.
We will take forward all the recommendations and I hope that we will do so with considerable cross-party support to make sure that we are taking the action that we need to take to protect our vulnerable young people.
The Brock report explicitly pointed out the vulnerability of on-the-radar children to sexual exploitation and cited the Rotherham case. This week, police launched a probe into 14 cases of child sexual exploitation here in Edinburgh. The urgency of the situation could not be greater. It is now a week since Jackie Brock told us that there had been little or no activity since her report. What has the First Minister done in the past week to redouble efforts?
As I said in my initial answer, an update setting out the actions that we are taking as a result of the Brock report is available to all members in SPICe. Those actions are part of a wider suite of actions that we are taking.
Iain Gray referred to police investigations. As I am sure he understands, I cannot comment on on-going police investigations, but the action plan that I referred to complements the wider action that we are taking, including the establishment of a new specialist police unit. Police Scotland has formed a new national child abuse investigation unit, which was announced in October last year and which will enable the police to play their full part in making sure that we protect children and young people.
As members are well aware, we have strengthened child protection legislation and policy. The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, which has received royal assent, strengthens the protection of children’s rights and creates a statutory single point of contact for raising concerns—the named person. Obviously, we have had a court judgment on that in the past few days. The act requires all agencies to work together in the child’s best interests.
We will continue to do everything that we possibly can to protect children, including the most vulnerable children, such as those who are vulnerable to sexual exploitation. I say genuinely that we will listen to ideas and suggestions from wherever they come because, on this issue perhaps more than on any other, we should come together as one Parliament that is determined to do what needs to be done.
Energy Jobs Task Force (Update)
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will provide an update on the work of the energy jobs task force. (S4F-02570)
I welcome the constructive discussions and actions that came out of the first meeting of the energy jobs task force, which was held yesterday in Aberdeen. The meeting involved a group from across the public and private sectors coming together quickly to reinforce the determination of industry to ensure that Scotland retains the skills and talent that support the sector at home and overseas. The task force considered a range of ideas, and immediate action will be taken to translate them into tangible outcomes. That will include a large-scale PACE—partnership action for continuing employment—market event to match those who face redundancy with opportunities elsewhere. It has also been agreed that the task force will convene monthly, with the next meeting scheduled for 26 February.
The First Minister says that the task force will look at “opportunities elsewhere”. One example might be North East Scotland College, which has recently struggled to recruit lecturers for its oil and gas skills courses. There might be beneficial opportunities amidst the recent spate of redundancies.
Does the First Minister share the disappointment that is being expressed in the north-east that the United Kingdom Government, which holds the fiscal powers, looks set to wait until the budget in March to make any interventions? Will she continue to press for early interventions to support the industry and the workforce?
I certainly share Mark McDonald’s views on what the UK Government should be doing right now. It should not be waiting until the budget; it should act with tax changes now. As I said in response to Ruth Davidson, I will make that argument again on Monday at the oil and gas summit.
Mark McDonald also makes reasonable points about North East Scotland College. It is important to emphasise that the aim of the task force is to safeguard the skills and experience that have been built up over decades in the oil and gas industry. That will necessitate close working with colleges and universities, which is why the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council is represented on the task force.
The First Minister will know that the Scottish Conservatives support further reductions in North Sea oil and gas taxation, and we have already made that case to the chancellor. However, Sir Ian Wood has stated that any reduction in taxes will make no difference to the situation over the next six to nine months. Therefore, what additional action will the Scottish Government take now to assist the sector?
I have just outlined some of the work that we are doing through the jobs task force. I have made it clear that it is the key intervention that supplements the work that we do routinely to support the sector on skills, innovation and exporting. The jobs task force is designed to do three things: first, to work to maintain jobs and skills as far as possible; secondly, to provide targeted support to those who face redundancy; and, thirdly, to support better collaboration across the industry. The task force met for the first time yesterday and heard a number of ideas that will now be turned into a tangible action plan. I hope that Murdo Fraser and others will get behind that.
I last spoke to Ian Wood the week before last. He made the point—which underpins our call for UK Government action—that companies are making decisions now and, therefore, need clarity now on the tax regime in which they will operate for the medium to long term. That is why it is so important that we not wait seven weeks until the budget but see that action now. I hope that the Scottish Conservatives will speak a bit more loudly in calling for their colleagues at Westminster to take that sensible action.
Science Education (Funding)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that science lessons in schools are being underfunded by £8 million per year. (S4F-02558)
We continue to see a strong picture on science in our schools, with increased higher entries across the three main science subjects since 2006 and pass rates remaining high.
We do not agree that school science is underfunded. The report of the learned societies group on Scottish science education considered approximately 2 per cent of primary schools and 13 per cent of secondary schools and indicates itself that the findings should be treated with some caution. Indeed, that is borne out by looking at international comparisons, in which Scotland is above the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average as measured by the programme for international student assessment rankings.
As the First Minister questioned the small sample size, will she listen to the evidence that the learned societies group gave to the Education and Culture Committee this week, in which it asked the Government to take its work forward and carry out a full independent audit of schools in Scotland to ensure that our pupils have the right equipment to learn the practical science skills for which colleges, universities and employers are looking?
I am very happy to work with the learned societies group to ensure that we build on the work that we are already doing to improve science learning and teaching. I was struck by one thing in particular that Dr Bill Beveridge, who gave evidence to the committee on behalf of the group this week, said, which was that the basic knowledge of the science subjects is being taught well and lots of pupils are seeing positive benefits from studying the sciences.
We will continue to work with all those with an interest to ensure that we improve our performance even further. Indeed, straight after First Minister’s questions, I will present certificates to this year’s winners of the Higgs prize. The prize—which, of course, bears the name of Professor Peter Higgs, the Nobel prize-winner—is designed and was introduced by the Government to motivate and inspire young physicists in our schools. That is one example of the work that the Scottish Government is doing and I hope that the chamber will welcome it.
Mental Health Research (Funding)
To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with national health service boards regarding the reported reduction in funding for mental health research. (S4F-02554)
The Scottish Government directs funding for mental health research through grants awarded by three sources: direct funding through grants awarded by the Scottish Government; direct funding of the Scottish mental health research network; and grants awarded to Scottish researchers by the UK Government Department of Health’s National Institute for Health Research funding committees. When we take those three strands together, we see rises in mental health research funding under this Government from around £1 million in 2006-07 to nearly £4 million in 2014-15.
Actually, it has been revealed that there has been an 85 per cent drop in funding for mental health research in the past eight years of the Scottish National Party Government. Today, in The Scotsman, the Scottish children’s services coalition repeats its warning of two years ago that the number of educational psychologists is dangerously low. On 9 July last year, it warned the then Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Alex Neil, that there remained a large number of unfilled vacancies for trainee psychiatrists.
Does the First Minister agree with the health professionals who say that the Scottish Government’s complacency on mental health issues is unacceptable?
The Scottish Government is not complacent in any way, shape or form when it comes to mental health. In November last year, we announced additional investment of £15 million over the next three years to improve mental health services. We are taking a range of actions to ensure that we reduce waiting times for access to psychological therapies and, in particular, to mental health treatment services for children and adolescents.
I am happy to make those figures available to Liz Smith and, indeed, anybody else who is interested in seeing them. The report to which she referred looked, if I understand it correctly, at two out of the three strands of funding to which I referred in my initial answer: funding from the chief scientist office’s committees and funding for the mental health research network. It did not include the funding that comes through the National Institute for Health Research funding committees. Scottish researchers can, of course, apply for that funding, because the chief scientist office pays around £9 million annually into that pot of funding. When we take the three strands together, we find that, as I said, funding for mental health research has increased from just over £1 million in 2006-07 to just under £4 million in 2014-15. That is the reality, and I am happy to make those figures available.
I thank the Government for providing me with the answer that was the basis of Liz Smith’s question. However, the funding to which the First Minister refers is UK funding, largely. Does she not agree that the level of Scottish funding demonstrates a total lack of leadership on mental health research?
It is clear that Labour has not changed its spots that much. It is still trying to make out that Scotland is too wee and too poor to do these things. [Interruption.]
Order.
I do not know whether Richard Simpson is aware of this, but the National Institute for Health Research funding that I referred to is contributed to by the chief scientist office in Scotland to the tune of £9 million every year. In other words, we contribute our share of funding to the pot so that Scottish researchers can bid into it and get funding back. We do not get anything for nothing, even though Richard Simpson wants to give the impression that we do.
One of the other strands of funding that I mentioned was the chief scientist office’s committees funding. As Richard Simpson will be aware, that is a pot of money that researchers bid into. It fluctuates year on year. I have here figures that go back to 2005-06. In some years, that funding was more than £2 million and in one year it was more than £3 million. It sometimes goes down and then goes back up again. It is a fund that is open for bids. I hope that we all agree that we should encourage those who do vital research on mental health to bid for that funding, because it is there and we want it to be used.
Previous
General Question Time