Chamber and committees

I will happily take away and consider the specific point about reviewing recruitment processes.

The funding will be available to councils. Obviously, we have given the commitment for the entire session of Parliament. We have also made a commitment for the first 100 days, and we will be in discussion with councils about funding for that.

It is important that councils have clarity in order that they can recruit. I repeat the point that I made in response to Willie Rennie’s question: we are in a situation right now in which teachers are required, so there should be employment opportunities for them. I expect the posts to be permanent in the main, but the councils are the employers and they need to be able to assess needs in their areas and take decisions based on that.

Sharon Dowey asked for further consideration of certain matters. I will certainly ensure that that is done, and I will revert to her as soon as possible.

We are committed to advancing equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people. Everyone should be able to access the healthcare that they need when they need it as part of that overall commitment to equality.

As part of the remobilisation of the national health service, we are considering the impact of the pandemic on sexual health services and how we can improve those services further. That includes widening access to pre-exposure prophylaxis, for example. We are also working with NHS Scotland to improve gender identity services, including reducing waiting times. I think that everybody recognises that the waiting times are far too long, and that that causes additional trauma and anxiety.

We will shortly write to the national gender identity clinical network for Scotland to ask it to review and update the gender reassignment protocol.

Douglas Ross does not need anybody’s permission—and certainly not mine—to raise issues in the chamber. However, it is a responsibility of leadership to engage in issues responsibly, particularly when we are talking about the life chances of young people, and not to misrepresent or try to confuse issues in order to back up political points that, frankly, do not stack up in reality.

Whether they agree or disagree with the judgments and decisions that the Government is making, I do not think that people who are listening will have heard me say that everybody else is wrong and the Government is right. They will have heard me try to set out, calmly and rationally, the position as it is in order to take on some of the misrepresentation that we have heard from Douglas Ross, as well as readily concede that some of these issues divide opinion, and that we have had to make judgments based on what we think is right overall. In fact, many of the judgments that we are making are the same judgments, albeit in different education systems, that different Governments of different parties in other parts of the UK are arriving at as well.

These are not straightforward issues, but they are hugely important. This is not a case of me stepping in to do something. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and I engage on these issues each and every single day, listening to teachers, parents and—above all else—young people in arriving at the best overall judgments that we can. We do that responsibly on the basis of the situation as it is, and not on the basis of the misrepresented situation that Douglas Ross has put forward. We will continue to do that in the interests of young people all over Scotland.

Yes, I do. It is not a question of whether the system recognises that, but of how the system is recognising it.

I absolutely concede that there are differences of opinion on this, but let us be clear about it. Obviously, I do not know all the circumstances of Ellie’s position, but instead of somebody in such a position having to go through the process of submitting all their evidence by 25 June, which is the deadline, getting a grade and then—if it is not the grade that they think they deserve—having to appeal it, the system has built-in contingency arrangements that mean that they can have access to an extended deadline in September. That takes account of such circumstances by giving young people a longer time period to get that evidence together and to have their grade determined.

It is not a question of whether those kinds of circumstances should be taken into account—it is simply about the method that the system is using. There are differences of opinion, and we continue to listen. However, it would not be accurate for anyone to say that circumstances such as Ellie’s are being ignored in the system that we have.

I will come on to the appeals process in a second. Douglas Ross used the word “sleekit” earlier and, if I may say so, there was a bit of that in how he posed his question. He took young people’s perfectly legitimate comments about the appeals part of the system and almost suggested that they were backing up what he said about the earlier part of the system in his first question. Before I come on to appeals, let me conclude the explanation about the first part of the system, which is the main part of the system, because we want to get it right the first time for young people, so that they do not have to appeal.

Douglas Ross said that I ignored the points that he made. I did not ignore the points that he made; I simply refused to go along with his misrepresentation of what that means in practice. If a school’s results are reviewed because they appear, at face value, to be out of step with previous years, that is not the operation of an algorithm automatically downgrading pupils, as would have happened last year. Such a situation simply triggers a checking by teachers, and if the teachers’ judgment is that the original grades stand, that is the final decision. It is simply a quality assurance process at that stage, before results go to the SQA.

Fundamentally, it is the teacher judgment that stands. At that point, the SQA is not involved, and when the SQA does become involved, no algorithm or past performance influences a young person’s grade. It is very important that that is set out clearly, because this matters to young people across the country.

I understand and I absolutely recognise that there are different views on the appeals process. Where there is consensus, it is on the point that it is right to offer universally available appeals, which are free of charge this year. However, there are two issues that have divided opinion, and I understand that. Great care has been taken with them.

One issue is the no-detriment system versus the symmetrical system, which Douglas Ross was asking about. On balance, in common with other parts of the UK and in line with past experience, it has been decided to adopt the symmetrical process. That is fair, because it is based only on the attainment of young people.

The second issue is of course whether there should be a ground of appeal based on exceptional circumstances. The system tries to build that into an earlier stage, so that a young person who suffers a bereavement, for example, does not have to rely on appeal but has extended time to submit the evidence for their original grading. We have taken great care around all this and we will continue to do so. Douglas Ross should by all means raise all these issues—it is important that they are scrutinised—but he should not try to confuse the different issues to make a point that does not stand in reality.

I will not pre-empt those decisions, but I will say that we will engage in order to support police officers. Should the cameras be required by the Ambulance Service, we will support that, too. I said in my initial answer that the funding that we have already made available to the police includes a commitment to that.

It is unacceptable that police officers and ambulance staff are attacked and abused while going about their duties. Anything that we can do to improve their safety and to protect them and the general public is important. We will continue to engage with the police and with the Ambulance Service on those issues.

People who are suffering symptoms that might be associated with what is known as long Covid should access their general practitioner services and be referred on as appropriate.

The issue of specialist clinics is important. I have discussed it in some depth with the national clinical director and the chief medical officer. I cannot comment on the exact nature of the clinics in England, but one of the issues around establishing specialist clinics at this stage is that there is still a lack of understanding about which specialisms are needed to respond to long Covid, because clinicians and experts do not yet fully understand all the symptoms and their cause. In Scotland, we are funding a number of research projects to develop that understanding, from which we will establish the longer-term provision. It is important that we do so as quickly as possible.

The clinical advisers and I discussed one of the constraints caused by the lack of understanding, which is that nobody can say for certain exactly what specialisms are needed in a specialist clinic, because we have to do the research and learn more about the condition before we can go to that stage. However, it is important work, which we are committed to doing properly.

I do, but before I come on to more detail on that, I also take the opportunity today to wish Steve Clarke and all of the Scotland men’s football team all the best as they prepare to embark on the European championship campaign. On Monday afternoon, 23 long years of frustration, pain and standing on the sidelines will come to an end. The team has done us proud already but—to echo Douglas Ross and, I am sure, everybody across the chamber—we will all be absolutely behind them as they kick the first ball and all the way through the tournament. We all hope that that will be for a considerable way into the tournament or—who knows?—perhaps the whole way. We wish Steve and all of the team good luck.

I stand by the statement that I made absolutely. This year’s national qualifications awards will be based on teacher judgment, and that teacher judgment will be evidenced by the attainment of pupils, not by past results or algorithms. No learner’s grades will be marked down or up because of their school’s past performance. If any learner has demonstrated that, for example, they deserve an A grade, an A grade is what they will receive.

There are quality assurance processes in place. We may come on to discuss them in more detail, but neither the Scottish Qualifications Authority nor Education Scotland is involved in those processes. Once provisional grades have been submitted to the SQA, they will not be changed because of any school’s past performance.

We will continue to listen. We have paid very close attention to all those points of detail and come to judgments that are difficult but which we think are right overall.

Anas Sarwar makes some really important points, but describing an appeals system that has not even started yet as “non-functioning” does not help with the delivery of the system or with proper discussion of these issues.

I recognise that some people will have issues with the September extension, but that is not the same as saying that making exceptional circumstances grounds for appeal is the way to fix that, for the reasons I have already set out.

Last week, I quoted Jim Thewliss of School Leaders Scotland, who made the point that the system, while not perfect, is the best one in the circumstances. He also makes the point that few people have come up with alternatives to what is in place. We will continue to look at all of this.

Hard lessons were learned last year, but I would caution against what we heard from Douglas Ross and what Anas Sarwar said at the end of his question: there is no algorithm that is determining young people’s results, and I do not think that it is fair to young people to create the impression that there is. The system is based on teacher judgment, which is correct. The appeals system is open to all, free of charge. We have taken a very difficult decision about having a no-detriment or symmetrical system. As I understand it, the Labour Welsh Government has done the same in a different education system. In saying that, I am not making a party-political point, recognising that these are not political decisions. We are trying to do the best we can in coming to these judgments, and we are often coming—from different political persuasions—to the same judgments.

We will continue to listen and we will continue to look at all the detail. We will strive to make sure that every young person gets the service from the education and exam system that they deserve, so that they can make the most of their life opportunities, notwithstanding the difficulties of the pandemic.

That question follows on from all our discussions so far today.

Our education system relies at all times on the hard work and dedication of teachers. That is particularly true right now, and we all recognise the effort they have put in and their resilience in supporting young people during the pandemic.

The reality right now is that we need all possible teaching resources that are at our disposal to support education recovery. I therefore expect—I will say in a moment why I am couching my answer in these terms—permanent employment opportunities to be the priority. We are working closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on employment of teachers for the coming academic years, and local authorities are currently undertaking assessment of their staff requirements to support education recovery.

I have couched my answer in those terms because the reality is that recruitment and deployment of teachers and support staff in local authority schools are matters for councils, because they are the employers of those staff. However, I expect the number of permanent posts and jobs to be absolutely maximised within the discretion that local authorities have to meet their needs.