Chamber and committees

I have nothing further to add, Presiding Officer. I will press amendment 8.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

After section 1

Members sought to introduce various forms of reporting duties through stage 2 amendments, and amendment 8 seeks to draw the different proposed approaches together, through a single reporting duty, which will address many of the concerns that have been raised.

It is important that ministers undertake a review and report on the provision of residential outdoor education by education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools. That will help to strengthen transparency and accountability of delivery. Throughout the bill process, it has been clear that members feel strongly that, if the bill is to achieve anything, it must be to deliver more equitable and accessible provision in the future, so that every child or young person who wants to participate can do so.

Amendment 8 requires the report to set out

“the extent to which the residential outdoor education provided was suitable for and accessed by pupils ... with additional support needs”

and those

“who experience socio-economic disadvantage”.

It further requires the report to include

“an assessment of the impact on and outcomes for pupils who participated in residential outdoor education”.

There are outstanding concerns around the potential workforce implications associated with the bill, which is a matter that I raised during stages 1 and 2. Those concerns will need to be resolved ahead of implementation, which is why the amendment requires that the report also assesses the impact of provision on the education workforce.

Finally, the amendment requires the report to include any further steps that Scottish ministers propose to take with respect to the provision of residential outdoor education.

Setting out in the bill the key topics to be covered in the report will provide a strong signal to the wider education system about the overall areas of focus of any future data collection that partners would need to be able to respond to.

The report is to be produced

“as soon as reasonably practicable”

after the five-year reporting period, which begins on the day on which the act comes fully into force. That will ensure that the Government can build up a robust bank of qualitative and quantitative data, from which meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

Amendment 8 covers all the key issues that were raised at stage 2 and strikes the right balance in relation to reporting duties, and I encourage members to support it.

I move amendment 8.

A new report from the Confederation of British Industry shows that business investment in Scotland has risen to a 20-year high, in contrast with a fall across the United Kingdom. This success for Scotland’s economy comes despite the UK Government’s tax on jobs and its low-growth model. How does the Scottish Government plan to build on that momentum and continue to deliver economic growth, even within the limits of devolution?

To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting Aberdeen City Council to maintain its local government services, including in response to any increasing social need in the city. (S6O-05269)

Aberdeen Cyrenians, which is a charity that supports people across Aberdeen who are facing poverty and homelessness, has warned that reforming the energy profits levy

“is not just an economic imperative, it’s a moral one”,

which is needed to prevent a “spiral of decline” and social harm in the city that no amount of welfare spending can reverse. Does the cabinet secretary share my concerns about the impact of Labour’s fiscal policies on local communities in my constituency? Will she say any more about the Scottish Government’s work with local authorities to mitigate that impact?

With almost all three and four-year-olds across Scotland reaping the benefits of funded ELC, will the cabinet secretary set out exactly how that is benefiting young folk and their families?

I like talking about veterans in the chamber, because it is one of the few areas in which there is fairly broad consensus. There is clear agreement among all MSPs that nobody should be worse off for having served in the armed forces. I say this as someone who has never been a minister, so I might need to be corrected, but, when it comes to supporting our veterans, there seems to be a level of co-operation and constructive working between the Scottish and UK Governments that does not always extend to other policy areas.

Over a number of years, the Scottish Veterans Commissioner’s office has produced a series of insightful and informative reports that have delved into what we can do to better support our veterans in particular areas, including education, skills and learning; making a home; health and wellbeing; community and relationships; the legal and justice systems; and, most recently, financial matters. All the recommendations in those reports are sensible and deliverable, which means that there tends to be agreement that they should be delivered.

It is helpful that, in the commissioner’s progress report, we can see the status of all the recommendations from the reports. The progress report clearly shows that progress has been made and that, for the first time, progress has been recorded against every extant recommendation. That means that we can also see where more work is needed.

A particular area for improvement, which is mentioned twice in the news release covering the report, relates to the GP recognition scheme, take-up of which has been described as “much lower than expected.” The recognition scheme aims to ensure that there is a designated practice lead in every general practice across Scotland, but, as I understand it, the figure currently sits at about 5 per cent. Given that the minister is in the chamber, I would be keen to take an intervention from him so that he can set out what the Government has done to improve uptake and what else can be done.

I welcome what the minister has just said about the work that is being done on the process. While we are talking about recognition schemes, I point out that, as employers, our individual MSP offices—not us, but our offices—can sign up to the defence employer recognition scheme. My office manager has already done that for my office, and we are at bronze award level. He will email all offices to show them how it can be done.

I reiterate that the majority of veterans will never need support, and that their experience and work ethic mean that they bring a lot to our workplaces and their communities. However, some will need support, and I am pleased that we are agreed across the chamber that we need to get to that place so that Scotland is seen as a destination of choice for those who leave our armed forces.

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the UK Government budget regarding how it affects the North East Scotland region. (S6O-05249)

I am proud to close the debate on behalf of the committee. Like the convener, I pay tribute to the work of my colleagues and to all those who gave evidence to the committee during our inquiry.

As we have heard, in 2016, the commission on widening access recommended that 20 per cent of full-time first-degree university entrants should come from the 20 per cent most deprived backgrounds by 2030, with interim targets of 16 per cent by 2021 and 18 per cent by 2026. In 2016-17, 13.8 per cent of full-time first-degree university entrants came from the 20 per cent most deprived backgrounds. Since 2019-20, that figure has been above 16 per cent. Much progress has been made, and that should be warmly welcomed.

However, there is more to do. As the committee set out in its report, students from different backgrounds face financial barriers in accessing higher education, particularly in relation to the on-going costs that are associated with studying, such as housing, food, heating and travel costs. The committee also heard about the barriers that are experienced by students who are disabled, from black and minority ethnic groups, or care experienced. The committee received evidence from disabled students, the majority of them stating that they had received lower grades than they expected for a reason that was related to being disabled. They also found it harder to go to university because of something that was related to their being disabled, and they did not feel that Scottish universities welcomed or encouraged disabled applicants.

From black and minority ethnic students, the committee heard that it would be helpful if there were greater awareness of the widening access programmes that are available across Scotland for pupils, teachers, parents and carers of pupils who aspire to go to university; if there were continuous professional development for staff who offer information, advice and guidance, including school careers advisers; and if there were greater financial support for students, including help and advice in relation to student accommodation, affordability and availability. The students indicated that it would also be helpful if there were an end to the myth that university is only for the select few and if there were support programmes that encouraged pupils to be their best selves and that promoted positive actions and destinations.

Barriers that were highlighted by care-experienced students included the fact that information on transitions to university is variable and dependent on the individual’s support networks, as well as the inconsistency of the support that is available. There were also concerns about the retention of care-experienced students. They said that there is a need for consistent careers advice at school, with bespoke advice and information about their support entitlements.

That is why we said that, although the widening access targets relate to students from deprived areas, it is important to consider young people from other backgrounds, including disabled students and black and minority ethnic students, as part of the widening access agenda.

Other members have reflected on those issues today, as well as on measures that are used to identify those who are eligible for widening access programmes and the possibilities that are offered by free school meals data and a unique learner number.

As is normal practice, I will discuss members’ contributions. Miles Briggs gave practical examples of positive destinations and the positive journeys to get to them. It was great to hear about the positive work that is being done jointly by workplaces, universities and colleges. He also spoke about the good work at RGU, and I, too, thank RGU for its briefing. Of course, the north-east also has another fantastic example of joint working: the girls in energy initiative, which is run by North East Scotland College and Shell.

Pam Duncan-Glancy spoke about the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill, which has just finished its stage 2. I look forward to seeing what stage 3 will bring and whether we can work together on any amendments.

Pam Duncan-Glancy also spoke about the difficulties that part-time students face. I agree that more needs to be done in that regard, and I look forward to working with her to find a solution.