Chamber and committees

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.

In general terms, I agree with all of that. I absolutely stand full square behind trans people and against the discrimination, stigma and prejudice that they face in the on-going battle for equality, to which they have as much entitlement as anyone else in our society.

There are many things that we have to do, not the least of which is to reduce waiting times for gender identity services. I have already commented on that.

All of us also have to recognise that progress in our society is, unfortunately, rarely all one way. We always have to protect and continue to win and re-win the progress that we have made.

I, too, wish people a happy pride month. That started as a process, and Stonewall was, of course, right at the heart of it. To this day, it has done very good work for people who rely on its services and support.

We do not have to look too far to see that there are many forces that want to take us backwards, whether on LGBTI issues, sexism, misogyny or racism. All of us have a duty to stand up for equality, however difficult that may be on occasion, to ensure that our progress as a country continues to be in the forward direction and that Scotland is a place where everybody feels valued, respected and able to be who they are. That is the country that I want not just to lead, but live in as a citizen. We all have work to do to ensure that that is the reality and not just rhetoric.

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.

What Douglas Ross is trying to suggest happens is simply not the case, so let me take the chamber and those watching at home through the process.

I have already set out that awards this year are based on teacher judgment. Teachers arrive at their judgments by looking at attainment—the work that pupils have done. There are no past results or algorithms that dictate what an individual learner’s grades will be.

On the quality assurance that is in place—I think that everybody would expect some such process to be in place—the only way in which a school’s past performance is looked at is to identify, within its own local authority area, whether it has provisional grades overall that appear to be significantly out of step with past performance. However—this is the important part—if that happens, provisional grades are then checked again not by the SQA or Education Scotland but by the relevant teachers. The key part is this: if the teacher’s judgment is that they stand by the result that they gave, that result stands and is not changed.

It is simply a checking procedure and it ends in the same place: the teacher’s judgment, based on the attainment of the pupil, determines the grade. Provisional grades are then submitted to the SQA, which is not involved in the process before that. When that happens, they will not be changed because of a school’s past performance. That is a world away from the situation last year, when algorithms and the past performance of schools automatically changed the performance and grade of some pupils. That is not happening.

This is a system that is based on teacher judgment, evidenced by the work that pupils have done throughout the year.

I want to reiterate what I said the other day, because I understand that, as we come out of restrictions and hope to start to get back to normal bit by bit, people will look at different circumstances and events, and ask why something is allowed here and not there. Sometimes, we get those things wrong, which is why we review matters on an on-going basis. However, every event or category of event has to be assessed based on its own characteristics, and we try to do that as best we can.

The Scottish Government position on cruises has been well known and communicated to the industry. This week, at the request of the industry, we reiterated the position, which did not change in any way this week. Domestic cruises will restart when the country as a whole is in protection level 1. The reason why we do not allow cruises right now comes down to their particular characteristics. They represent a long-duration, close-proximity form of leisure, which our advice says has a particularly high risk of transmission. When that is combined with the fact that cruises go to, and passengers can disembark at, multiple locations, the risk of spreading the virus to different parts of the country is increased.

It is difficult for the cruise industry. It is an important part of our economy and we want to support getting it back to normal as much as possible. However, I am explaining why the advice is that it is still prudent to have the restrictions in place right now, while in other circumstances and for other events, with the right mitigations, a different conclusion might be reached.

I recognise that it is difficult for people, but we continue to try to take decisions based on the best advice and by applying the best possible judgment overall.

Obviously, we have a commitment for patients, including children and young people, to receive NHS dental care and treatment as quickly as possible. We are supporting a range of measures to remobilise the NHS overall, which of course includes dental services. As part of that process, I can confirm today a funding package of up to £5 million for improved ventilation in dental premises. We will also continue to fund free personal protective equipment for the dental sector, and increase that supply by up to 50 per cent from July. We will also re-introduce the child smile programme.

There is a significant challenge across the whole NHS to tackle backlogs and get the service back to normal. That is the case in dental services as well, and we will continue to take the necessary steps to support that work.

No. However, it is important and right that we be vigilant around that point. It is the NHS that provides the services that people need, whether for healthcare generally or for dental services in particular. I have not personally seen the letter to which Sarah Boyack refers, but I am happy to have a look at it and its response. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care met with the British Dental Association—this week, I think—to discuss those very issues, so there is a real recognition of the importance to support recovery as quickly as possible, in dental services as in the NHS.

To give some context, prior to Covid, NHS dental services provided more than four million courses of treatment every year. A record number of people are registered with an NHS dentist—more than 95 per cent of the population. There are, however, pressures there—some are Covid related and some undoubtedly pre-date Covid. Through funding and efforts to protect from the impacts of Covid and, where necessary, through a redesign of services, the Government will support the profession to ensure that people get the care and treatment that they need, and that they get it on the national health service.