Chamber and committees

I have been contacted by a parent council in the central region regarding the statutory six-month transition period for ASN pupils, as this appears to differ between local authority areas. In addition, another parent from outwith my area contacted me about the flexi-schooling model for ASN pupils, as the local authority rejected her child’s application without a valid reason. When I submitted questions to the minister regarding ASN provision, I was given a short answer saying that the Scottish Government does not record certain data on ASN provision, despite the Government setting the guidance for councils.

Why does the Scottish Government not properly record that vital information? Is it time to review ASN provision across Scotland to ensure that our young people and families are supported?

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the transition to secondary school and flexi-schooling models for pupils with additional support needs. (S6O-01048)

5.

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will investigate the reported increasing number of children being referred to the gender specialist clinic in Glasgow, in light of reports of a similar inquiry planned by the United Kingdom Government. (S6F-01022)

According to recent reports, 263 patients under the age of 18 are being treated at the Sandyford clinic in Glasgow, and almost 1,000, including 86 pre-pubescent children, are on the waiting list for their first appointment. At least 98 per cent of children who consent to take puberty blockers go on to have sex hormone treatment that can cause irreversible changes to their bodies. Those figures are alarming.

We must balance the need to help those who are definitely suffering from gender dysphoria with the need to protect vulnerable young people who are unsure of their identity and risk embarking on gender hormone treatment prematurely.

Will the First Minister commit to a similar inquiry to that which has been announced by the UK Government, to ensure that our children are safeguarded?

I welcome the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.

The cost of a school day per child can, for low-income families, be a tough financial burden to bear. As we have heard throughout the contributions today, the situation has only been exacerbated by the pandemic and the rising cost of living. MSPs need to utilise the powers that we have in this Parliament to introduce policies to help and support those who need it most.

If we look at the Scottish Government’s performance in relation to education standards throughout Scotland, we can see that it has not fulfilled its promise to parents and young people to make education its number 1 priority. The SNP has had 15 years in office to make a difference, but it has failed to make meaningful improvements to the life chances of our young people.

As we all know, a good education and positive destinations for our young people are paramount in tackling poverty. However, disadvantaged children continue to have lower attainment than their peers. The SNP has never fully got to grips with tackling the attainment gap, and it is our young people who continue to suffer, as Pam Gosal and other members highlighted.

Taking numeracy and literacy results as an example, we can see that the gaps in 2020-21 were larger than at any point since comparable data was made available in 2016-17. That shows that standards are slipping, and the Scottish Government must explain why that situation has got worse on its watch.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that the funding formula that is currently used by our councils is unfair for the private, voluntary and independent sector? Does she agree that something must be done to sort that?

We are making improvements, but we are not making them quickly enough. That is the problem that we face just now, and what the Scottish Government must get to grips with.

Initially, the Scottish Government set out funding for North Lanarkshire Council and eight other challenge authorities, which Michael Marra mentioned in his contribution, to specifically target those areas in improving attainment and reducing poverty levels. However, that has been scrapped and all local authorities will now have to share the funding. Regrettably, that takes funding away from areas such as North Lanarkshire and shows that the Scottish Government does not have a clear plan to tackle the attainment gap in areas of real need. When combined with the cut to the revised attainment gap funding, that will not help to improve outcomes for our young people or reduce the cost of the school day.

We have heard some interesting contributions this afternoon. During her contribution, the cabinet secretary mentioned the 1,140 hours early learning and childcare programme, which is unanimously supported throughout the Parliament. However, when she was asked about the unfair funding formula that has been created by the Government, which is causing nurseries in the PVI sector to close or reduce their hours, once again, not much of a response was given. The issue needs to be sorted urgently, and I again urge the Scottish Government to take action and review the funding formula for the PVI sector and local authorities to ensure that the 1,140 programme is fair for all.

Oliver Mundell mentioned the desperate state of our schools, and how they struggle to function and provide basic stationery for the classroom. He also mentioned the reduction in teacher numbers, which has undoubtedly impacted our most vulnerable young people.

Michael Marra spoke about the pressures that are faced by the childcare sector, and the SNP’s failed laptop roll-out. Thirty per cent of laptops have been distributed, which is nowhere near good enough, and many of our young people are still without that vital tool to assist them with their schoolwork. That issue was also raised by my colleague Stephen Kerr, who reiterated how important education is in helping our young people to have the best start in life.

Pam Duncan-Glancy and others raised the important role that local authorities play in reducing the cost of the school day for low-income families. I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. As other councillors in the chamber have mentioned this afternoon, I am also nearly in my final week of being a councillor. It has been an honour and a privilege to serve my local community over the past five years. Like other councillors, I have tried my best to make improvements in the ward area that I represent.

During my time as a councillor, one of the biggest frustrations that I have experienced is the lack of funding that councils receive from the Scottish Government to tackle the cost of the school day for low-income families. At one stage during this year’s budget process, councils had to navigate a real-terms reduction in funding of roughly £264 million. At that time, council leaders branded it “barely survivable”, with many councils having to make cuts in their education budgets to balance the books.

In my view, local authorities are best placed to implement policies that benefit the unique needs of an area. For example, Forgewood in Motherwell has completely different social and economic challenges from Giffnock in Eastwood. However, the SNP’s obsession with centralisation has led to councils being stripped of their ability to make good local policies that benefit the people who live in that local authority area. The Scottish Government should empower our councils to reduce the cost of the school day for low-income families, but as a result of budgets being cut year on year, many services that assist with the cost of the school day have been reduced or scrapped altogether.

I condemn the Scottish Government lavishing millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on funding yet another referendum instead of using that money to invest in our schools and other council services, which is what we are debating today.

Breakfast clubs are important for many young people, and it is not only politicians in the chamber who share that view. A recent poll shows that almost all teachers who were surveyed believe that breakfast is important for pupils, and research shows that having breakfast improves school performance. Not having that service for parents, or increasing the cost of school meals, contributes to the financial pressures that many parents face.

The Scottish Government must fund councils properly so that they can provide breakfast clubs, as well as take forward other innovative ideas that help to reduce the cost of the school day for low-income families.

Before I conclude my remarks, I will raise a concern that relates to the Government’s consultation to remove school uniforms for secondary school pupils and the unintended consequences that that could have on families and their expenses.

Uniforms are an integral and sensible part of school life. They give pupils a sense of dignity, foster discipline and, most important, they promote equality throughout the school setting. If we had to remove uniforms from our schools, parents who are struggling financially might not be able to dress their children in expensive fashionable or designer clothing. I am concerned that that could lead to bullying or young people being made to feel inferior to their peers. SNP members have raised that as a concern, saying that dress-down days can be difficult for families to afford. Ross Greer and others commented on specific items being required for school uniforms. They are right to say that that issue needs to be looked at.

Although I understand that, after undertaking the largest survey of school uniforms in the UK, the Schoolwear Association has found that the average cost of compulsory uniform and sportswear items is about £101.19 per pupil. However, the cost of an average fashionable or designer outfit would be significantly higher than that.

Sorry—I am about to conclude.

We have clothing grants available for families who need additional support. However, as I mentioned earlier, if councils were funded properly, they could make the choice to increase the clothing grant to assist with the cost of the school day for low-income families.

It is disappointing that the SNP has turned up today to give itself a pat on the back for some of the measures that it has introduced without taking any responsibility for the significant improvements that it must still make in reducing the cost of the school day for low-income families.

National planning framework 4 has formed a large part of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s work over the past few months, and I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. As many members have outlined, NPF4 sets out where development and infrastructure are required throughout the whole of Scotland. There are merits in undertaking that piece of work, and I believe that the intentions are genuine. However, as with every piece of legislation, NPF4 does not come without its challenges. That was certainly my experience as a committee member who participated in formal evidence sessions on the framework, alongside stakeholder events outwith the committee structure. At times, I was rather frustrated with the process.

Although I support some of the ambitions that are set out in NPF4, I do not believe that the Scottish Government has understood the scale of the work that is involved in implementing the document. Key stakeholders certainly expressed that view during the committee’s evidence sessions—many stated, for example, that the framework lacks clarity. Dr Caroline Brown, professor of infrastructure at Heriot-Watt University, raised concerns about clarity in the NPF4 document. She explained that

“elements of NPF4 ... need to be fleshed out ... to provide clarity ... particularly in a system that is struggling for resources.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 25 January 2022; c 30.]

In my short contribution, I will raise the point about lack of resource, which many members have mentioned. I declare an interest as I am, until 5 May, a serving councillor on North Lanarkshire Council. Councils will need to be better funded if NPF4 is to be a success. As we know, council funding has been cut over the past decade, which has had a considerable impact on planning decisions, among other service areas, in local authorities. As we know, local authorities are best placed to implement planning decisions in their communities. However, they have been starved of the ambition to make changes due to a lack of fair funding.

NPF4 could allow for greater flexibility in local government planning policy, which I believe would lead to better decisions that would improve our diverse and unique communities throughout Scotland. Last week, I visited Baron’s Haugh in Motherwell in my region with the local RSPB Scotland team. It is fantastic for an urbanised area to have such a beautiful nature reserve on its doorstep. Some of the many issues that we discussed during our walk around the reserve included increasing the resilience of biodiversity, helping to tackle climate change, directing investment towards nature and creating better spaces in which people and nature can cohabit. That left me wondering why plans relating to the creation of a nature network were not included in NPF4 and whether that area should be explored further in the final draft.

Four minutes is not a long time in which to reflect on weeks of evidence and the content of the NPF4 document, but I will mention one other area before I draw my remarks to a close. That is the issue of 20-minute neighbourhoods, which was one of the many issues on which I focused when asking questions in committee. More work is needed to define the concept of a 20-minute neighbourhood and what that would mean for our rural areas in particular. Those areas lack transport infrastructure, which would need to be significantly improved to enable the concept of a 20-minute neighbourhood even to be considered. I feel that the idea is intended more for urban areas, but we cannot cut off our rural areas, which are in desperate need of investment. I believe that that idea needs to be expanded, and I would be grateful if the minister could reflect on and outline how rural parts of Scotland could implement 20-minute neighbourhoods, particularly in relation to building local circular economies.

NPF4 has its merits, but we need more clarity over its deliverability. My worry is that NPF4 will overpromise and underdeliver for communities that need development and infrastructure. My other concern is that, due to the lack of clarity in the current document, it will be open to interpretation and there will be no way to record and monitor progress. Will we be able to find out whether any lessons have been learned from previous national frameworks, and how will success be monitored as we move forward?

I would like to see a national planning framework that gives our local authorities more autonomy to make the best possible decisions for their area.