Chamber and committees

As the cabinet secretary mentioned in her statement, the Scottish Government has spent billions of pounds on tackling child poverty, but it remains stubbornly high, with one in five children still living in relative poverty. With 22 per cent of working-age adults economically inactive, more needs to be done to get families out of poverty through long-term employment and job opportunities. We need to get Scotland working again. Will the cabinet secretary look at investing in employability services? Will she also look at the ballooning benefits bill, which is unsustainable? If we are really serious about getting Scotland working again, we need to cut that bill.

I visited Forth Valley College recently and I have seen the spreadsheets and the figures. It does not appear to be an increase—it looks more like flat cash.

Can the minister give me more information on that?

That was a well-read intervention from Mr Barrett. I thank him very much for that. If I may pick up on the point—[Interruption.] Hold on. I accepted the intervention, so please let me respond.

I will set out the reasons why I think that our universities and colleges are in the financial situation that they are in. It is not about immigration issues but about the current funding model, which does not work for universities.

In relation to the proposed further job losses and the additional £20 million-worth of savings, I am interested in finding out a bit more about the correspondence between the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Culture and Gaelic, the Scottish Funding Council and the university on pausing the redundancies, because we do not seem to be moving in the direction that we would expect. I do not know whether the minister has any more information in front of him that he could provide to members today.

When so many of our leading universities face a financial crisis, senior management should lead by example, as has been reiterated by other members. The reality of the situation is that institutions—this applies to universities other than the University of Dundee—cannot continue to spend money that they do not have. Difficult decisions are never welcome, particularly when they affect staff and students, but university leaders have a responsibility to ensure that their institutions remain financially viable. The alternative is a continued cycle of crisis management, which serves nobody.

The University of Dundee is not alone in sounding the alarm. I appreciate that Forth Valley College, which operates in my region, is not a university, but it has announced that its Alloa campus could close in order to secure the future of the wider college. To answer the question that Mr Barratt put to me, I believe that institutions continuing to receive flat cash is one of the reasons why a lot of colleges and universities face funding pressures at present. If we continue in this way, services will be reduced, campuses will come under threat and opportunities for learners will be diminished. Those challenges are not, in all cases, simply the result of individual management failures; they raise questions about the long-term sustainability of Scotland’s higher and further education system.

I am well pushing it, aren’t I, Deputy Presiding Officer?

The Scottish Conservatives are arguing for a more integrated and economically focused approach from the Scottish Funding Council. Funding decisions should be linked more closely to workforce planning, regional economic needs and the skills shortages that employers have identified. We would like to see that from the Scottish Government, and I would be interested to know whether the minister agrees.

16:44

We are talking about the University of Dundee, but I also referenced Forth Valley College, where alarm bells are ringing. We need to look at the funding model, otherwise the college will be in a precarious situation, not in a couple of years’ time but in as soon as a couple of months’ time, by the looks of it.

I, too, thank Maggie Chapman for bringing the really important issue of our universities to the chamber.

I want to cast members’ minds back to March 2025, when Douglas Ross, as the convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, challenged the former principal and vice-chancellor of the University of Dundee, Professor Iain Gillespie, on the financial crisis at the university and the public funding that was being used to support the institution at that time, when it faced a £35 million deficit. Serious questions were raised about the management decisions that had contributed to the crisis. If I remember the responses correctly, I do not think that the committee session shone the best light on those who gave evidence.

If we fast forward a year, we see that the University of Dundee has sadly found itself in the headlines for all the wrong reasons again. As Maggie Chapman said, that is not down to the lecturers or the students; it is down to the university’s governance and structures, as well as the financial situation that our universities and colleges face.

On 7 April, I attended a community council meeting in Newarthill regarding the proposed solar farm development on the north field at Biggar Road. Residents raised concerns about its proximity to housing and the cumulative impact of further developments in the area, including a proposed data centre. There are also concerns that Oakes Energy has provided misleading information about the project and its local impact. Does the First Minister agree that Scotland needs a clear energy strategy to guide such developments? Does he agree that developers must engage openly and honestly with communities so that projects are developed with them rather than visited upon them?

The former education secretary and now Deputy First Minister, Jenny Gilruth, said in January this year that teachers would need to relocate to where the jobs are. Mike Corbett from the NASUWT condemned those comments. Does the new cabinet secretary agree with the Deputy First Minister, or does she agree that the issue comes down to a dysfunctional teacher supply system that still sees teachers trapped in short-term or temporary contracts?

The Christie commission was established in 2011. We are talking about prevention, which was mentioned then, and about joined-up working, which was also mentioned then. What is going to be different this time?

I begin by congratulating all the members who have, this afternoon, made their first speeches in the chamber, including Dawn Black, Alyn Smith, Zen Ghani and Gary Bouse. All spoke passionately about their communities and predecessors. I refer to Gary Bouse’s speech in particular, because his constituency is part of the region that I represent. He is absolutely right to mention the jobs in Falkirk and concerns about the number of industries and businesses that have closed in recent times. I welcome the opportunity to work on a cross-party basis on that issue, because we know how important it is to the people of Falkirk.

I come to the crux of the debate. Two hours on, the Government has not properly explained how it plans to reform public services in Scotland. If it is not about cuts, what is it about? Is it savings, efficiencies or streamlining? I know those terms well, and I know this story. When I was a councillor, we were instructed to pursue cuts every year in order to agree a budget. After all, balancing the books is a legal requirement. Councillors in the chamber—past and present—will know that.

However, the Scottish Government has had no qualms about taking an axe to local government budgets over many years. Although ministers in the chamber passed the sentence, it was councillors who were left to carry out the difficult decisions, reduce services and manage the consequences in our communities. That is finally catching up with the Scottish National Party. As Michael Marra said, after nearly two decades in government, the SNP has finally been forced to confront the consequences of its decisions. The looming £5 billion black hole in Scotland’s finances will simply not disappear by itself, especially when the Government spends money as though it is going out of fashion.

The Government is now in the same position that it has put councillors in year after year, and it has only two realistic options: cut spending or raise taxes. Instead, it appears to have chosen a third route: rebrand the problem as public service reform. As Murdo Fraser rightly pointed out, the new cabinet secretary has already insisted that public service reform does not mean cuts. I hate to break it to the cabinet secretary, but “public service reform” is precisely the kind of language that councils have long been encouraged to use when trying to soften the blow of reductions in services. We have been here before. Two decades on, we are still hearing the same promises about joined-up services, prevention, efficiency and transformation. That is why I asked the cabinet secretary earlier what is going to be different this time. What is the point of holding a debate when there is nothing concrete before the Parliament to scrutinise? Given the SNP’s track record on delivery, why should anyone take it at its word?

The Scottish Conservatives have attempted to be constructive by making practical proposals that could help to deliver meaningful public service reform. We believe that it is necessary and the right thing to do, but any serious discussion must also address the ever-rising welfare bill. If the Government is genuinely committed to reducing demand on public services and creating a more sustainable system, it cannot continue to ignore one of the fastest-growing areas of public expenditure. The Scottish Fiscal Commission has made it clear that spending on social security is rising more quickly than funding provided through the block grant adjustment. By 2026-27, the gap will exceed £1 billion, and it is expected to grow further.

The question that the Government never seems willing to answer is this: if the benefits system is costing more every year, why are so many of the underlying problems facing Scotland getting worse? Every pound that is absorbed by the spiralling welfare budget is a pound that is not being spent to tackle the root causes. The result is a vicious cycle—less investment in opportunity, more economic inactivity, greater reliance on benefits and ever-growing pressures on public services and finances.

No one is arguing against supporting those who genuinely need help. However, when we look at compassion, we also need to look at whether the current system is delivering the outcomes that people deserve.

I am in my final few seconds. During the debate, we have heard a few different phrases to describe the cabinet secretary—we have had “Super Ivan”, “Ivan the Great” and “Ivan the Terrible”, but time will tell which version of the cabinet secretary will be his legacy in this role.

16:45

Over the past 10 years, there have been three reviews of maternity and neonatal services. I do not believe that there is any joined-up thinking in this Government about its approach and how it will improve those services for mums and their babies.

I want to raise an issue about the number of beds that are available for parents in neonatal wards. The work that was undertaken by Bliss Scotland shows that, for every 10 children who need specialised care, there is only one bed for parents who want to stay overnight. I worked with the previous minister on the issue and I am willing to work with the cabinet secretary. Will she give an update today on the number of beds that are currently available for parents? Will she ensure that there is a positive change in the number of those beds, to ensure that parents can stay with their babies who need specialised care?