Chamber and committees

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. We recognise the benefit of immigration for our economy. Edinburgh sees people coming to study and work in our information technology, finance and tourism sectors, and they can even become MSPs if they are lucky.

Following the racist riots of last summer, it must be said that Scotland welcomes immigrants and asylum seekers and deplores all forms of racism and prejudice. Regardless of how someone came here, our immigration system must be fair and based on respect.

It is necessary to support businesses and individuals to hire from outside Scotland, but our responsibilities do not end with visas. New Scots face the same issues that many others face already. Richard Leonard raised the poor conditions faced by agricultural workers. I have heard of cases of new Scots or asylum seekers being stuck in temporary accommodation with no running water for months on end and of instances of a room being shared between three people. Tackling issues such as the housing emergency and ensuring that our councils have the resources to support new Scots must be part of any immigration strategy.

We have heard today about the importance of using immigration to fill skills gaps in our economy, but I note that those exact issues were discussed in Parliament in 2018. It seems to me to be an admission of failure on the SNP’s part that some professions have been on the shortage occupation list for more than a decade. Some of that can be addressed through immigration, but the power to fill those gaps exists today.

That brings me to the proposed rural visa pilot. Members have outlined the many issues caused by rural depopulation and the resulting inequalities between regions. Having a specific immigration strategy could be a useful way of increasing the number of people moving to island and rural areas. That has been done before: my colleague Rhoda Grant said that Scotland previously had immigration schemes such as the fresh talent initiative when Scottish Labour was in Government.

The major issue that remains is that people want to live in rural and island areas but are forced to move, or are put off from coming, by the lack of economic opportunity, lack of housing and high cost of living that the Scottish Government has allowed to take hold. That is recognised in Labour’s economic plan for the Gaelic language. If the Scottish Government wants to attract and retain people in rural areas, tackling those issues must take priority. A temporary increase in population is not a long-term solution for the depopulation crisis.

In closing, I will discuss Scotland’s ageing population. Members have said that Scotland’s working-age population is predicted to decline in the next 20 years. That creates the need for greater immigration, but we cannot rely solely on the rest of the world to provide us with a workforce. Scotland’s fertility rate has fallen and, although the attitude towards having children has changed in recent years, we must consider the outside factors that may be driving that, including childcare, the cost of living and a housing emergency that leaves people paying high rents later and later in life. Scottish Government research shows that finance and childcare remain the largest barriers to people having children.

I will not, as I have a lot to get through.

Immigration must not be used as a sticking plaster for a society where starting a family is out of reach for too many.

Scottish Labour believes that immigration has a key role to play in Scotland’s economic future. The immigration system should reflect the needs of the Scottish economy. However, immigration must not be used as a substitute for skills development or tackling the root causes of rural and island depopulation.

In committee evidence, National Galleries of Scotland stated that the lack of investment in its estate is increasing to “a critical level” the risk of a “catastrophic incident” in the gallery buildings. The largest project to mitigate that risk—the art works project in Granton, north Edinburgh—has yet to get off the ground. Will the Scottish Government do all that it can to expedite progress on the project? Can the First Minister assure us that no national galleries will close their doors?

As Murdo Fraser said, unlike in England, the Scottish Government’s rates relief proposals are limited to venues with a rateable value of under £51,000. Music Venue Trust analysis shows that 19 venues will miss out due to the cap, including the Voodoo Rooms in the cabinet secretary’s constituency, which will pay more than larger venues. Given the soaring costs for grass-roots music venues in recent years, does the cabinet secretary agree that further and more targeted support is needed?

It is an honour to open my members’ business debate. I thank all members who have signed the motion and everyone who has chosen to attend today to discuss this important issue. I offer special recognition to the campaigners and type 1 diabetics who are watching in the public gallery and online, and I thank them for their hard work.

Some 36,000 Scots live with type 1 diabetes, a chronic condition that cannot be prevented and that must be managed 24 hours a day. People with type 1 must constantly adjust their insulin levels on the basis of what they have eaten or how much physical activity they have done. At least 42 different factors affect blood glucose levels, and too much or too little insulin brings about a number of health issues, including hypoglycaemia, heart disease and blindness.

Diabetes technology, which refers to technology for administering insulin, checking blood sugar and general management, can be transformational in improving the quality of life of people who live with type 1. The most effective form of diabetes technology is the hybrid closed-loop system, which involves an insulin pump combined with a continuous glucose monitor that automatically doses insulin. It means less finger pricking, no more injections and no more planning one’s life around one’s condition. It is the closest thing that we have to a cure, but, sadly, that life-changing technology is unavailable to many.

In October, I hosted a round table on diabetes technology at which I heard from health practitioners and people living with type 1. The stories that I heard included that of a woman whom we will call Jane, who described a constant battle to keep her blood sugar at the right level. She said that she would wake up every night, sweating and drowsy with low blood glucose. Her diabetes affected her hobbies and her ability to drive her car. Indeed, one day she was forced to do eight injections and 16 finger pricks, and she described her situation as a “never-ending cycle of despair”.

Given that people with type 1 diabetes make, on average, 180 more decisions each day than those without, the impact of technology in lessening that mental burden and improving wellbeing is massive. Jane, however, does not have access to a closed-loop system. Like so many others, she has faced the twin battles of long waiting times and a shocking lack of choice in how their care is delivered. The waiting time for an insulin pump is over a year in every national health service board, with the longest wait coming in at over five years. The number of people referred to NHS Lothian for diabetes technology is projected to grow to 1,200 by March this year. That alone should be alarming. Even after being seen, diabetes patients are being failed.

There is no single treatment for diabetes. Diabetes devices have different algorithms and features for managing blood glucose. For example, some devices have a “follow me” function that allows parents and carers to track their child’s glucose levels using their mobile phone. That is essential if a child is to go out to play or to compete safely in sports.

Choice in technology is explicitly recognised by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network guideline “SIGN 170: Optimising glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes”, which states that adults should be offered

“a choice ... based on their individual preferences, needs”

and

“characteristics”.

In Scotland, however, that guidance is not followed, and many national health service boards offer only one device.

Jane was told that the pumps that she needed to manage her condition were “too expensive”. Users are being moved to less suitable options, which is putting them at risk. The safety and the needs of users must come first. In England, people are given a choice. Type 1 diabetes does not change once someone crosses the border, so why should type 1s in Scotland miss out and receive worse care on the basis of where they live? We must see action to ensure that SIGN guidelines are followed by all clinical teams.

Last year, the Scottish Government pledged up to £8.8 million to increase the provision of diabetes technology. Improved funding is welcome, of course, but despite that new funding, NHS Lothian states that diabetes technology remains a “significant financial pressure”. It has been found that treating complications from diabetes costs the NHS approximately 10 per cent of its whole budget, while the University of York has found that diabetes results in a productivity loss to the UK economy of £3.3 billion. Diabetes technology is genuinely preventative care that will save the NHS money in the long term, and we should be doing far more to ensure that it is widespread.

England has a five-year plan to ensure that 90 per cent of children and 50 per cent of adults with diabetes get such technology. The Scottish Government should be as, or more, ambitious, with a long-term plan to get every adult and child the technology that they need, adequate multiyear funding and full implementation of SIGN guideline 170 to guarantee choice in devices.

I finish by asking members to place themselves in the shoes of someone with type 1 diabetes, who knew that, although the technology that would change their life was available, there was no political will to ensure that they got it soon. I ask members to imagine the frustration that they would feel day by day. We cannot tell people just to wait. People with type 1 diabetes should not have to fight for their care.

Christmas is a happy time for many, but for some it can be the most difficult and lonely time of the year. Social isolation services, such as befriending, have been shown to greatly improve wellbeing. Can the minister advise us how the Scottish Government is ensuring that people who need those services are offered them, including through referrals from other public services such as the national health service and schools?

It has been clear for years that the SQA is not fit for purpose. After repeated mistakes, trust between teaching practitioners and the SQA is at an all-time low. Whether it be the higher history exam controversy or the injustice of the 2020 exam results, members recognise that changes are needed.

With the bill, the Scottish Government had the opportunity to turn the page and build a new body that works in partnership to deliver for learners and teachers. Unfortunately, it does not achieve that and falls short of what is necessary. In his evidence to the education committee, Professor Kenneth Muir said:

“We need a system that builds greater trust and ... increases empowerment”.—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 18 September 2024; c 3.]

Rebuilding trust is a fundamental part of why the bill is necessary. I will discuss whether it falls short in rebuilding trust and increasing accountability, specifically regarding qualifications Scotland.

I would like to note, as other members have, the proposed accreditation power for qualifications Scotland. In his report on replacing the SQA, Professor Muir said that he was encouraged by the ministers to be bold and to leave no options off the table. However, the Scottish Government—after previously accepting the recommendation on splitting responsibilities—is no longer interested in being bold. Now, qualifications Scotland will retain both awarding and accrediting powers.

Recently, the issue with the higher history paper was compounded by the perception of the SQA marking its own work. That perception, regardless of any new name, will remain for qualifications Scotland if it continues to be both an awarding and accrediting body, and that will not improve confidence.

The Education, Children and Young People Committee was told of the perception of decisions being made for teaching professionals rather than being made by them. If qualifications Scotland is to avoid the issue that has been faced by the SQA, it must be truly representative of, and engage with, educators. Although teachers will be included on the board, the extent of their representation, other than in terms of numbers, is not clear, and the lack of trade union membership is not acceptable.

A lack of clarity regarding representation is seen in other areas. In the interest committees, there is nothing to account for the wide range of experiences in learning and teaching. The large presence of qualifications Scotland staff on the interest committees contradicts their purpose entirely. The committees’ function, other than to advise qualifications Scotland, is also not clear. If the committees are to be a “meaningful mechanism”, as the policy memorandum states, they cannot just be talking shops.

In the provision regarding the strategic advisory council, there is, again, no specification on its membership or on how the council will interact with the interest committees, which, following recent controversies, should be key. We must see further detail on how all those bodies will ensure representation and responsibility; otherwise, the issues that plagued the SQA will be repeated.

I will finish by discussing equalities. Of the parts of qualifications Scotland that I have mentioned, all must endeavour to include the voices of ethnic minorities and anyone who experiences prejudice in education. Scotland is committed to building an anti-racist education system. Those principles should be baked into the foundations of qualifications Scotland. I understand that the education committee has asked the Scottish Government to set out how it will improve data collection processes for protected groups. I join the committee in requesting that. Any new body must have the best information possible to understand how its decisions are affecting learners, especially vulnerable people.

The SQA’s replacement must be accountable and representative and must engage with teachers, learners and parents. This reform will affect the prospects of future generations, and we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes that were made with the SQA, so the bill must deliver.

It has been clear for years that the SQA is not fit for purpose. After repeated mistakes, trust between teaching practitioners and the SQA is at an all-time low. Whether it be the higher history exam controversy or the injustice of the 2020 exam results, members recognise that changes are needed.

With the bill, the Scottish Government had the opportunity to turn the page and build a new body that works in partnership to deliver for learners and teachers. Unfortunately, it does not achieve that and falls short of what is necessary. In his evidence to the education committee, Professor Kenneth Muir said:

“We need a system that builds greater trust and ... increases empowerment”.—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 18 September 2024; c 3.]

Rebuilding trust is a fundamental part of why the bill is necessary. I will discuss whether it falls short in rebuilding trust and increasing accountability, specifically regarding qualifications Scotland.

I would like to note, as other members have, the proposed accreditation power for qualifications Scotland. In his report on replacing the SQA, Professor Muir said that he was encouraged by the ministers to be bold and to leave no options off the table. However, the Scottish Government—after previously accepting the recommendation on splitting responsibilities—is no longer interested in being bold. Now, qualifications Scotland will retain both awarding and accrediting powers.

Recently, the issue with the higher history paper was compounded by the perception of the SQA marking its own work. That perception, regardless of any new name, will remain for qualifications Scotland if it continues to be both an awarding and an accrediting body, and that will not improve confidence.

The Education, Children and Young People Committee was told of the perception of decisions being made for teaching professionals rather than being made by them. If qualifications Scotland is to avoid the issue that has been faced by the SQA, it must be truly representative of, and engage with, educators. Although teachers will be included on the board, the extent of their representation, other than in terms of numbers, is not clear, and the lack of trade union membership is not acceptable.

A lack of clarity regarding representation is seen in other areas. In the interest committees, there is nothing to account for the wide range of experiences in learning and teaching. The large presence of qualifications Scotland staff on the interest committees contradicts their purpose entirely. The committees’ function, other than to advise qualifications Scotland, is also not clear. If the committees are to be a “meaningful mechanism”, as the policy memorandum states, they cannot just be talking shops.

In the provision regarding the strategic advisory council, there is, again, no specification on its membership or on how the council will interact with the interest committees, which, following recent controversies, should be key. We must see further detail on how all those bodies will ensure representation and responsibility; otherwise, the issues that plagued the SQA will be repeated.

I will finish by discussing equalities. Of the parts of qualifications Scotland that I have mentioned, all must endeavour to include the voices of ethnic minorities and anyone who experiences prejudice in education. Scotland is committed to building an anti-racist education system. Those principles should be baked into the foundations of qualifications Scotland. I understand that the education committee has asked the Scottish Government to set out how it will improve data collection processes for protected groups. I join the committee in requesting that. Any new body must have the best information possible to understand how its decisions are affecting learners, especially vulnerable people.

The SQA’s replacement must be accountable and representative and must engage with teachers, learners and parents. This reform will affect the prospects of future generations, and we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes that were made with the SQA, so the bill must deliver.

An investigation into Edinburgh maternity units found that

“Mothers and newborn babies came to harm”

from

“a ‘toxic’ culture”,

fuelled by

“staffing shortages”.

That comes almost a year after the British Medical Association Scotland warned that national health service staffing levels were becoming “dangerously low”.

We are now seeing the consequences, with mothers and newborns needlessly being put at risk by the Scottish National Party’s mismanagement of our NHS. Will the First Minister listen to those concerns, stop pretending that nothing is wrong and step up to protect patients and staff?

I am sorry—I do not know whether I missed this. Did you say that there was supposed to be a report out in August? Can we ask the Scottish Government what happened to that report?