Chamber and committees

We have become acutely aware of the unstable financial environment in which colleges are operating, and we are now seeing that in the university sector as well. The Institute for Fiscal Studies calculates that the resources that are available for undergraduates in Scotland are around 21 per cent lower than those for undergraduates at English universities, for example. We have heard the cabinet secretary’s views on the current funding model, but universities across Scotland are calling for the Government to review that model. Is the Scottish Government willing to look at that model, or does it just understand that more universities will end up in a more difficult financial situation in the future?

I am not sure whether I heard in your answer that you accept that, after 18 years of the policy on free tuition, the sector is saying that it is not working, and that the Government is willing to review it. The cabinet secretary may want to give a yes or no answer to that.

That is helpful—thank you. Given the implementation date of 1 January, that data will just be coming forward now.

Finally, I wish to return to Bill Kidd’s question regarding mental health support and the £18.8 million that the cabinet secretary cut from the budget. Colleges Scotland has provided a very useful suggestion regarding a national benchmark, and the minister touched on that. We know that there is a postcode lottery for the provision of mental health services for college students. Are the cabinet secretary and minister actively taking that matter forward? I did not pick that up from the minister’s answers.

As we know, and as the cabinet secretary has said, the level of need has changed following the pandemic. We have record levels of suicide in our student population, which must be addressed. I am concerned about the £18.8 million cut to mental health services—which is a direct cut to student mental health services.

The sector is saying that the financing model is not currently working, and we know that that is why there are all these problems. Apart from the Government saying that it wants to continue the free tuition policy, what is the Government going to do about the current state of the finances for our university and colleges sector? There is clearly a need for cross-party review to look at how more resource can be put into the university and college sector, which the Government does not currently have any access to.

The specific issue with regard to Dundee university, as we have heard today, is deeply concerning, but I want to pick up on the minister’s comment that he hopes that university courts are looking at their finances. Has the Government decided to look at the issue of financial sustainability or to commission a piece of work through, for example, Audit Scotland, to see where we can potentially have better oversight of what is going on with university finances? Is that a special piece of work that ministers have looked to commission?

What about a review?

I thank my Lothian colleague and friend Foysol Choudhury for securing the debate this evening. It is an important debate, and I welcome and support the campaigning that he has been doing on the issue for some time. For those of us who are lucky enough to represent Lothian and constituencies that are covered by NHS Lothian, this is an important issue, and I hope that the minister will hear my call for action this evening.

I welcome the constituents who are in the chamber with us. The service levels that are being provided in Lothian are falling way below what any of us would expect, and that has to be addressed by ministers. I have spoken to many constituents who have now given up on the idea that the technology will be available to them in their lifetimes—other members have raised that issue—and that has to change.

The Government has said that it wants the technology to be made available—I have several letters from ministers that say just that—but those of us who attend NHS Lothian briefings know that that is not the case. The financial situation that the health board faces, with a projected shortfall of £133 million, means that it has looked for cost savings in this area—now, only pregnant women and children will be able to access the technology. We need that to change, and I hope that ministers are acutely aware of the situation in Lothian and the need for that issue to be addressed. In its diabetes improvement plan, which was published in February 2021, the Government said that it was committed to providing the technologies to improve the quality of life for people living with type 1 diabetes.

It was interesting to listen to some of the stories, because one of my good friends from school had type 1 diabetes. We worked in a pub together, and I was just thinking of the way in which she went about her working life in the pub. I was in the kitchen with her at the time, and she would test and grab a drink and then go back to work.

The technology that we now have can transform lives. I welcome Emma Harper’s advocacy—she is living proof of the technology’s use, and we should all want our constituents to have access to it. It is estimated that the technology can add another 10 years to people’s life expectancy. However, it is about not just life expectancy but potential cost savings, because we know that diabetes can lead to additional accident and emergency department admissions, and blindness, and those of us who visit hospitals—I previously had the health portfolio—have talked to patients who have had amputations because of their type 1 diabetes. Therefore, we know that the issue will cost the NHS even more in the future.

I hope that the debate has presented the opportunity for, as the Diabetes Scotland charity has called for, the Scottish Government to consider matching the actions that are being taken in England, where a five-year implementation plan has been funded and the roll-out of the closed-loop systems has been announced. It was put to me that, if this was a drug, not a piece of technology, there would not be discrimination in different health boards, especially in NHS Lothian, in my region. I hope that ministers will take that on board. If the technology is to be provided, it must be provided on an equitable basis across our country. There is a lack of provision of the technology for my constituents in Lothian. In fact, it has been suggested to me that it is likely that only 30 adults will receive a pump in the next two years. The waiting list currently stands at 1,200, so we need action.

I hope that the debate has presented the opportunity for ministers to hear our concerns, especially those of Lothian members, and that, in the minister’s summing-up speech, we will hear exactly what the Scottish Government intends to do.

Paul O’Kane started by saying that he felt that he had been listening to the First Minister since he was in secondary school. To be quite frank, I feel that I have been listening to him since primary school.

I wish members a happy new year and I thank the organisations that provided useful briefings ahead of today’s debate.

In the time that I have today, I will highlight three areas where opportunities to tackle child poverty are being missed. I hope to bring positive solutions to the chamber this afternoon.

The first area is child literacy levels. One in four Scottish pupils are still not achieving the literacy levels that are expected at their age. The post-pandemic levels of literacy are still a major concern, so it is clear that we need a change in approach. That figure does not take into account the record levels of absenteeism in Scottish schools.

Although there have been marginal improvements in trends, it is concerning that programme for international student assessment—PISA—data analysis suggests a decline in education performance, especially in maths and sciences.

What can we do to address child literacy rates? I have spoken to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills about the fact that we need a renewed focus on reading within the curriculum for excellence. One in 10 children in our country do not have access to books at home. That has to change, and that is why I have been impressed with the Little Free Library movement that has been building in recent years, and by the free libraries for children that have started to pop up outside schools in Edinburgh, such as the one outside Craiglockhart primary school. There is an opportunity to provide young people, regardless of their background, with access to free books. I hope that we can engage with ministers to see how that work can be taken forward and developed across the country, so that we can provide free books across the country and outside every primary school.

As other members have already mentioned today, there remains an issue with regard to the free school meals policy. In its briefing for the debate, Barnardo’s stated that it has not had clarification on the delivery of universal free school meals. I hope that the cabinet secretary, in her closing speech, will outline to Parliament when that policy will be delivered and whether it will be delivered by the end of this parliamentary session.

I have consistently raised the issue of children being stuck in temporary accommodation because of the homelessness crisis in the capital. Over Christmas recess, those of us who represent Edinburgh have seen how live and challenging that issue remains. If ending child poverty is genuinely a cross-Government priority, housing needs to be placed at the heart of that. The number of children living in temporary accommodation has reached more than 16,000. The First Minister listed a number of housing policies in his speech, and I welcome them. However, we need to look towards a presumption against placing families with children in temporary accommodation, because many temporary accommodation facilities are inappropriate. I have raised the issue previously with the Minister for Housing, and I hope that, with COSLA, ministers will look towards amendments around that issue. It is clear that, for many children, being placed in temporary accommodation is the end of their journey to a safe home. We need to make sure that that changes, and I hope that the Government will look towards lodging an amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill on that issue.

The final issue that I will raise with ministers is access to healthcare. The First Minister did not mention it in his speech, but Willie Rennie touched on it. That is really important, because it is not always the main issue that springs to mind when we are debating child poverty. However, post-pandemic, access to healthcare for children is an issue that is becoming more and more concerning, because there are poor outcomes similar to those that we are seeing for adults.

Last March, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health published its report “Worried and waiting: A review of paediatric waiting times in Scotland 2024”. It demonstrated deeply concerning increases in waiting times for children who are accessing care. The percentage of children in Scotland who are waiting more than 12 weeks for medical care increased by 49.8 per cent, and the total number of paediatric waits currently sits at 10,512, which is a 114 per cent increase. The time that children are waiting to access healthcare needs to be reviewed, and we need the health secretary to come to Parliament to make a statement specifically on that issue.

The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has put forward a number of key suggestions and recommendations, which I think can be taken forward by Government. I hope and ask that ministers review the current waiting times scandal.

I believe that there is still cross-party consensus on working towards eradicating child poverty in Scotland. However, as Russell Findlay stated, over the past 18 years, SNP ministers have been good at creating processes. Our education system, housing sector and health services are full of them. Ministers have not been good at delivering on outcomes, so we need the Parliament to focus on those outcomes. The Scottish Government is not making the progress that it promised. Indeed, the situation for young people in education, health and housing is often getting worse for the most vulnerable children in our society.

I support the amendment in the name of my colleague Russell Findlay.

Something that stuck with me following our visit to the Broomlee centre is that it has been 80 years since a significant piece of legislation has been passed in the UK to expand outdoor education—the Education Act 1944, which is often called the Butler act. That was the foundation for the building of that centre.

I have a question about the capacity that is currently in the sector for the increased demand. Some useful data was shown to us on peaks and troughs; obviously, those are very much related to school holidays. What work has been undertaken on the bill to envisage what that would look like—not necessarily just at centres, but, as you mentioned, at camping and hostel sites as well? To what extent could different models be used?

I have a question about current capacity. As an Edinburgh member, I see my schools benefiting from the centres that we have, and schools in Aberdeenshire and the Ayrshires also have that opportunity. Do you see the bill as a way of correcting the postcode lottery that has been created, with some councils continuing to value outdoor education while others have allowed it to disappear?