Chamber and committees

I welcome Craig Hoy to the Parliament.

I will turn to waiting times for mental health services for children and adolescents and to rejected referrals in reverse order. The Scottish Government accepted all the recommendations in the 2018 audit of rejected referrals, and we are working to deliver on all of them. That work includes asking Public Health Scotland to work with health boards to develop a new patient-level data set, so that we understand not just the overall numbers but the reason for rejected referrals. The service standard makes it clear what should happen if a particular referral does not require specialist treatment. Work is rightly on-going to tackle rejected referrals.

In summary, our approach to waiting times more generally is two-fold: first, to invest more into CAMHS; secondly, to redesign the service so that much greater support provision is in place for young people in communities so that, hopefully, they do not then require specialist services. Given that I have limited time now, I am happy to ask the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to provide more detail of all that. Those important strands of work are being taken forward with urgency.

Again, I will write to Pam Duncan-Glancy and make the information about the arrangements that are in place available to the whole chamber. Those arrangements are still under consideration to ensure that any fan zone proceeds safely with all the correct mitigations in place.

On the issue of testing, I repeat that our advice to the whole population—not just people who attend a particular event—is for people to order lateral flow device tests for free through the NHS inform website and test themselves twice a week so that it can be identified whether they have the virus without symptoms. If the LFD test is positive, people can go for a confirmatory polymerase chain reaction test, which helps us break the chain of transmission. It is really important to get that message across to the public at large, not simply in relation to particular attendances at particular events.

The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care has told me that he spoke to NHS Dumfries and Galloway yesterday.

Unfortunately, new variants of the virus will occur, but it is really important that we take the same basic steps to contain variants as we have taken to contain the virus all along. We now think that the delta variant represents well over half of all new cases in Scotland, so we will see the same situation in many parts of the country, including of course the NHS Dumfries and Galloway area. However, the way that we stop the virus spreading is the same for every variant. It involves all the basic measures that we know about, such as hand hygiene, wearing face coverings, distancing and making sure that we all follow the guidance that is in place. Of course, it is also about testing regularly—everybody can now access lateral flow tests—and people coming forward for vaccination as soon as they are invited to do so. The best protection that any of us can have against this virus is to have two doses of the vaccine.

There are a range of different ways in which we will support the vast renewable energy potential that Scotland has, and which Lorna Slater is absolutely right to point out. Indeed, I hope that those issues will feature in the discussions that she and I will have about the co-operation between our parties over the course of this parliamentary session.

Scotland is a world leader in renewable energy. However, we need to do much more in terms of generating energy and ensuring that we properly seize the economic benefits that come from that. Candidly speaking, we have not done well enough in that area. There is a lot of work to be done here, and we are determined to get on with it as we lead up to the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and then move beyond that. I very much look forward to working with the Greens—and, indeed, with others across the chamber—to ensure that Scotland continues to lead the world in renewable energy and in the wider transition to net zero.

I take this opportunity to welcome Siobhian Brown to the chamber and congratulate her on her first question.

We have been very consistent in calling for the European Union settlement scheme to be replaced by a declaratory system, which would alleviate the risks of EU citizens becoming unlawfully resident here. In my view, EU citizens simply should not have to apply to retain their rights.

Due to the pandemic, many people have struggled to obtain identity documents or retrieve required evidence. We know that many have yet to apply to the scheme, and there is also a backlog in processing applications.

We will continue to do all that we can to support EU citizens. The Minister for Culture, Europe and International Development has already raised the issue with the UK Government on more than one occasion. However, let me put this simply: the UK Government has, I hope, learned the lessons of the Windrush scandal, and it must make sure that it does everything that it can to avoid repeating that scandal. Part of that must involve extending the 30 June deadline.

That is an important question, and the issue has the potential to impact on the lives of many people across the country. The Government has worked very closely with local authorities and care providers to increase awareness of the settlement scheme. That has included funding a caseworker at the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to assist vulnerable people who have contacted local authorities. There has been a particular focus on identifying and supporting looked-after children. In addition, Citizens Advice Scotland has written to care homes to alert them to the upcoming deadline. The stay in Scotland marketing campaign has also restarted. As well as using social media, it uses radio and local press to reach people who might not be online.

We will provide support and information, but it is vital that we also continue to press the UK Government to make the important changes to the scheme that are needed to safeguard the rights of EU citizens here.

What is appalling is for Douglas Ross to mischaracterise what I have said. I did not say that the Government’s job was to persuade young people that they were wrong; I said that it is the Government’s job to engage with young people and—yes—to seek to persuade them that the arrangements that are in place are the right ones, but to listen as we go.

For example, it is because we have listened to young people that a fundamentally different system is in place this year—one that is based not on algorithms but on teacher judgment, informed by the attainment of young people and the work that they have done.

We are often challenged to listen more to teachers. According to the EIS,

“Although some schools have made use of SQA assessment instruments, teachers are able to draw on whatever evidence they regard as valid in determining grades ... unlike ... exams, the evidence does not need to be produced in a one-off event”.

That is a critical point, as is the fact that the judgment of teachers cannot be challenged by the SQA.

We have also given young people the direct right of appeal, free of any cost, which was also called for.

I have three points to make on the important issue of whether to have a no-detriment system, in which appeals can only be upgraded, not downgraded, or a symmetrical system. First, the symmetrical system is one that ensures that the attainment of pupils is central to the process, which is the fairest way of proceeding. That is not new—it is the approach that has been taken in past years. Douglas Ross says that it is indefensible, but exactly the same approach has been taken by the UK Government for the English system. That is another important point.

A point that is perhaps more important for pupils is the fact that past experience shows us that the downgrading of grades is exceptionally rare. In 2019, out of more than 11,000 appeals, only two resulted in downgrading. In 2018, when there were 13,000 appeals, seven resulted in downgrading. It is an exceptional occurrence. The approach ensures that we have a system that, from start to finish, is intended to focus on the actual attainment of pupils.

Of course, the appeals system should be used only in exceptional circumstances—not because we want to put pupils off using it, but because we want to get the grades right the first time. That is why the judgment of teachers at the centre of this is so important.

Yes, we will consider that. Like everybody else, I feel deep sadness that, in the past, women were forced to give their children up for adoption because of prevailing moral and social attitudes. Major shifts have occurred in adoption policy and practice, ensuring that the focus is now placed on providing secure and permanent relationships for some of our most undersupported children.

We are engaging with campaigners who are calling for an apology, so that we can better understand their experiences and consider the issue more fully. I give my commitment that we will continue to do that.

In recent years, we have come a long way in improving outcomes for looked-after children and young people, but I know that there is still much more to do. That is why I and the Government have committed to implementing the findings of the promise to ensure that all looked-after children will grow up safe, happy and loved.

Yes, I give that commitment. I take the matter really seriously. I hope that Neil Bibby will accept—I am sure that he will—that it is important, when we do something like this, that we get it right and listen to the people who are, understandably, calling for an apology. I, too, have read about Marion McMillan’s experience, and it is absolutely heartbreaking. It is not isolated and unique—that happened to too many women back in days when attitudes were very different from those that prevail today. I do not know all the detail, but I know that in the Republic of Ireland, for example, there was a concern that work around the issue did not deliver what campaigners had been calling for. Therefore, it is really important that we understand what an apology would seek to cover and how it can be framed in a way that gives the campaigners the closure—if that is an appropriate word—that they are looking for. I am very committed to considering the matter properly and fully and to doing so quickly but in a way that delivers what the campaigners feel is important to them.

Yes, I do. On this year’s qualifications, it is important that I and the Government recognise, first of all, that this is a really anxious and difficult time for pupils—and, indeed, their parents—across the country. It is really important that we and the SQA continue to listen. We are doing our utmost to continue to deliver fair grades in what are very difficult circumstances.

If there are further questions on the issue today, I will try to answer them all as clearly as possible, because scrutiny and understanding are important. However, I will try to stay away from partisan politics, not least because many of the arrangements that we are putting in place are very similar to those that are being put in place in England and in Wales under Governments of different parties. That reflects the fact that this is a difficult situation.

In setting that important context as we go—as I am sure that we will—into the detail, I can perhaps do no better than quote Jim Thewliss, the general secretary of School Leaders Scotland, who said:

“The system that replaced the exams was never going to be perfect but all the way along no one has come up with a better way of doing it than the alternative certification model.”

This is a difficult set of circumstances, but the Government continues to do all that we can to support pupils in these difficult times. That approach will very much continue.