Chamber and committees

I thank the organisations that have provided helpful briefings for us ahead of the debate and I welcome to the public gallery representatives from them. As the minister stated in her opening remarks, today is an opportunity for the whole Parliament to reaffirm our collective commitment to Scotland’s children, young people, adults and families with care experience. Indeed, we have all made that point.

However, we need to be honest about where we are now with not only keeping the Promise but delivering it. I think that all members have emphasised that we are now at the delivery point, and we need to accept that we all have a responsibility for that—not only Government ministers but all the members, from every party in the chamber, who have signed up to this.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to introducing the Promise bill in this session of Parliament but, with only 18 months left of this session, we all have a role to play in making sure that the bill is the best piece of legislation that it can be. Across the parties, we have a lot of questions that we want to ask about what the bill will look like and how we can shape it, but those who are trying to deliver the Promise in our councils, education institutions and the third sector will push back at all of us and say that they do not have the resources and that they are getting cuts to their budgets.

Therefore, we also need to understand that funding needs to follow the delivery of the Promise, and we need to challenge ourselves and ministers on that. There has been substantial and welcome progress in recent years, but we have a huge amount of work to do if we are to say that we have kept the Promise by 2030.

I recently met a number of organisations to discuss the Promise and to talk about the peer support that is being provided. It is something that I am passionate about and which I know is making a difference. For example, Scotland’s only national mentoring programme for care-experienced children, intandem, which works with children who are at home or in kinship care, is inspiring Scotland’s young people, matching them with trained local mentors. The organisation works with and supports 280 care-experienced young people. It is a great example of where the Promise has already started to filter down to ensure that advocacy lies at the heart of the progress that we want to see.

I hope that the minister will engage with me and others on what will be in the proposed Promise bill about advocacy for young people. We politicians stand up to make our voices heard, but in doing so, we must ensure that children make their voices heard, too, and that they are listened to and respected. A huge amount of progress still needs to be made on that. Children in the hearings system should be granted better access to independent advocacy to ensure that they are provided with impartial information about their rights and their entitlements, and they should be given enough space to ensure that their opinions and feelings are communicated, within what is often a moving process.

That might require additional resources and potential changes to legislation, but I think that it is important for those changes to be made and for the system to be turned around to ensure that children’s voices are made paramount. It is also important in supporting better decision making by our young people. I hope that there is an opportunity for the minister to work with us on the bill, because I, for one, am passionate about changes to the advocacy aspect.

However, this is not just about process. What is always my concern when I stand up to make a speech and, indeed, when it comes to everything that we do in the chamber—and it is probably a concern for ministers on the front bench, too—is that process is one thing, but delivering an outcome is very much another. The policies that have changed and which are sitting with COSLA are doing just that—sitting with COSLA.

We need all institutions and organisations to move forward at pace to deliver the Promise. In 2017, I campaigned for a national kinship carer payment, but it was delivered only last year. The care leaver payment that ministers are introducing is a welcome step forward, and I hope that it can deliver, but there needs to be a different model for kinship carers, who are often grandparents. Their needs must be further taken into account.

When the Social Justice and Social Security Committee held a private round-table meeting with kinship carers, I distinctly remember speaking to a lady from Glasgow. The police arrived at her home at 3am with her half-naked grandchild and told her, “This is your responsibility. You are the next of kin.” Her daughter had had an addiction and substance misuse issue; the police had intervened and had brought her granddaughter to her home—and that was it. It was a case of “Over to you.”

The financial support package for kinship carers is not really there. Many kinship carers, and many grandparents in our society who are bringing up young people, are concerned that if they reach out for help, social services will get involved and the children will be taken away. There are still barriers in our system to many of our fellow citizens, who are doing their very best by our young people and keeping families together, being able to reach out for help. We need to do something about that, because if we do not, some individuals will continue to not ask for help, and the outcomes will not improve for those young people.

A number of members have mentioned the progress that we need to make. I do not think that we have a clear route to delivering the Promise by 2030. I hope that the proposed bill can make that happen, and we can look towards that. In his excellent speech, Willie Rennie mentioned that we are starting to see the development of a postcode lottery in the delivery of the Promise. I know that we all hate using the words “postcode lottery”, but some individual leaders in our councils are delivering progress, while others are not. We need collective work to take the Promise forward.

Kevin Stewart made an important contribution with regard to public and private relationships within the delivery of the Promise. How can they be taken forward, especially in relation to employers? That is an important aspect that we all need to look towards, and we must challenge the private sector to come and help to deliver the Promise along with the public organisations that we are tasking with doing that.

There is still a lot of potential with regard to what can be delivered on housing. When I visited the University of Edinburgh recently, I was pleased to hear about the work that it is doing to ensure that care-experienced young people have wraparound housing for the whole year, not just during term time, if that is what they want. We have seen some good progress on that.

Oliver Mundell and Nicola Sturgeon made similarly challenging speeches, and I welcome their contributions. There is no point in our congratulating ourselves on what we are doing: we need to be honest about the delivery and the structural reforms that are needed, which will be difficult to put in place. As Nicola Sturgeon said, achieving our aims will need strategy, leadership and funding, but we have all voted for the mission that we are undertaking, and we should all unite behind it, because we need to ensure that we deliver it.

To conclude—and I welcome the extra time that you have given me, Deputy Presiding Officer—I do not think that the delivery of the Promise requires a great deal of legislative change. As The Promise Scotland said in its briefing, we must ensure that we do not see the landscape becoming more complicated and cluttered. I hope that the proposed Promise bill is broad enough in scope to ensure that the required legislative changes are made to enable Scotland to keep the Promise everywhere, every day and to everyone.

I thank Clare Adamson for securing the debate and for her campaigning on the issue, which is an important one. A number of us have spoken in what has become an annual debate. I welcome the fact that we have such a commitment. As Clare Adamson did, I welcome to the public gallery the many campaigners who have pushed the Parliament in the right direction on this issue. It is important that we recognise them as advocates and crusaders around pancreatic cancer. We know why they do that, and we know why many of us want to speak in the debate: each of us will have lost a family member, a work colleague, a family friend or—given our job—even constituents. That is why we want things to improve. All of us, across all parties, agree on that.

In most years, the debate around pancreatic cancer awareness month will be consensual and will point to the making of welcome progress. However, I feel that this year is different, having spoken to campaigners and read the briefings that we have received ahead of the debate, which raise serious concerns, as Clare Adamson mentioned, about the Scot HPB pathway and the future opportunities that it presents. We need to raise those concerns in the debate. In the time that I have, I will concentrate my remarks on that.

As co-convener of the cross-party group on cancer, I have been made aware of the concerns about a move to a regional approach rather than the national approach to pancreatic cancer that was being developed by the Government very effectively and was welcomed by many people working in the cancer community. However, it feels as though that approach is now under threat. Pancreatic Cancer Action’s briefing for the debate makes specific reference to the fact that, in December 2023—a week before Christmas—the Scottish Government surprisingly announced that it was cancelling the project, despite significant improvements in outcomes for patients. Thanks to campaigning by patients—many of whom are in the public gallery—the Government eventually reversed that decision and restarted the project.

If we fast forward to now, we see the Golden Jubilee and other hospitals being ruled out as national hosts, with a push back towards having a regional model. I think that that would be a step backwards and hope that ministers, in response to this debate, will consider where we are today and how that national approach can be taken forward and developed as part of the Government’s national cancer strategy. We know the positive outcomes that that could have, particularly when treatment decisions are taken by multidisciplinary teams treating pancreatic cancer.

We have heard the call for action from charities and campaigners. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the minister will look at what has been outlined. I know that she has had briefings and is acutely aware of the concerns and hope that she will also agree to meet to discuss the situation with charities and with the members who have spoken in this debate. Scotland has made great progress, some of it world leading, but I am concerned that that is now at risk. We must deal with that and ensure that we get back on track.

As Clare Adamson outlined, the outcomes for pancreatic cancer patients are still not improving quickly enough. That model could have addressed that, so we must ensure that it is protected and taken forward.

I welcome the debate and the opportunity for us to raise the issue. I again congratulate all those involved in the awareness week and thank them for the work that they do all year round. We must ensure that that is celebrated and acknowledged by Parliament.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us. The Government’s 2023 consultation found mixed views on the independent review’s proposals. Last year, Professor Hayward said that the independent review’s report reflected an agreed position, and she has outlined the working groups that led to that.

I ask the panel to explain the differences between the findings of the Government’s consultation and those of the consultation that was undertaken by the independent review. Given that we are all waiting to hear what the cabinet secretary will say in December, are you concerned that the Government seems to be content with the low-hanging fruit among the 26 recommendations that you put forward?

I also have nothing to declare.

I do not doubt that all of us round this table want to see that. You mentioned the worth of all learners, which is important, but the idea of a Scottish diploma of achievement is that it is an award, because people need to understand the skill set. You mentioned credit, competence and core skills, but I am not clear on how an employer who is taking on someone straight from school will be able to understand what level of literacy and numeracy that individual who is coming into their business will have. In putting the flesh on the bones of that, have you—or the Scottish Government, in the work that you have been doing together—taken that forward?

An interesting point, which you raised earlier, is about the change that there has been in that the 20 per cent of pupils who we have been talking about—those who are not achieving a nat 5 level qualification—are still in school between S4 and S5. That may have changed since I was at secondary school.

I want to understand more about the positive destinations that the Government talks about. In the Government’s response, it said that it will look at the possibility of a leaving certificate. You have outlined the value that the proposed diploma of achievement would have. For the college sector, that is quite clear for apprenticeship development, but employers need to be able to understand what skill set a young person has when they are taking them on. What work has been done on that? Although the Government is saying that it is looking at the possibility of a leaving certificate, is that going to miss the point?

Does anyone have anything to add to that?

Yes.

Dr Sue Ellis, a former professor of education at the University of Strathclyde, has stated that councils are

“stuck between a rock and a hard place”,

and I am sure that the cabinet secretary has seen the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities briefing about that. Does she agree that that is the position that the Scottish Government has put councils in on teacher numbers?

Deputy Presiding Officer, from what you have just said, I think that you would make a good headteacher.

I thank my Scottish Conservative colleagues, Liam Kerr and Sue Webber, for the power of work that they undertook as my party’s spokesman on education and skills and as the convener of the Parliament’s Education, Children and Young People Committee. In taking up my new role, I look forward to working with the cabinet secretary and education spokespeople from other parties.

We on the Conservative benches want to work to make sure that all of our young people have the best start in life, so I am pleased that the Scottish Conservatives are using our first party business debate under Russell Findlay’s leadership to raise the concerns of parents, teachers and our young people about the situation in many of our classrooms today.

I am proud to have attended good state primary and secondary schools in Perthshire. Looking back, that good, high-quality comprehensive Scottish education gave many of us the opportunity to get ahead, regardless of our background. It was a system where teachers had the freedom and ability to focus on teaching and making sure that young people were equally focused on learning and achieving the best possible outcomes.

I know, from teachers who I have spoken to since I was given this job, that today they want the same opportunity to deliver for our young people in schools, but reforms over the past few years have significantly reduced that opportunity. We have now seen that reflected in outcomes, with the decline in literacy and numeracy.

After almost two decades of Scottish National Party rule, the opportunity for our young people to succeed has been undermined, our global reputation has been severely tarnished, standards have been allowed to fall, subject choices have shrunk and our schools are plummeting down international educational league tables. New data that was published in August shows that pass rates for national 5, higher and advanced higher qualifications have all fallen, while the attainment gap between the richest and poorest pupils in our country is increasing. We have to be honest that not all is well in Scottish education. If we are to realise the potential of all of our young people, we urgently need to fix the problems that our schools face and help to restore Scottish education standards to where they should be—at the top of the international educational league tables.

After 25 years of devolution, educational decline has taken place in Scotland, and most of that time has been under the SNP Government. There is real concern about the cabinet secretary’s decision to withhold £145 million of funding from local authorities. That will risk teacher numbers across Scotland declining further, and teacher numbers in Scotland have already fallen over the past two years. Parents, teachers and young people are concerned by the real threat to teacher numbers in Glasgow and to the school week in Falkirk, and ministers cannot just blame councils for the situation when it is SNP ministers in Holyrood who hold the purse strings.

We need a proper national workforce plan, and it should shame SNP ministers that so many qualified teachers are already struggling to obtain permanent employment in Scotland today. The Scottish teachers for permanence campaign estimates that more than 3,800 qualified teachers in Scotland are searching for permanent workplaces across the country. The situation is unacceptable, and the teaching profession is looking for leadership, not excuses.

Furthermore, the SNP’s consistent underfunding of local authorities has placed additional support needs services in a precarious position; the numbers of ASN teachers has consistently declined since 2010. More than 250,000 pupils in Scotland need additional support, and they have been consistently let down by this SNP Government, which has overpromised and underdelivered. Pupils, parents and teachers deserve better.

The Scottish Conservatives have always tried to work constructively to deliver for our young people. That is why I have to say that I have a major concern about the decline in literacy levels in Scotland, with more than one in four Scottish state school pupils not achieving literacy levels. If our young people cannot read, they cannot learn. Scotland faces a growing literacy crisis, with up to 30 per cent of secondary school students having a reading age two or more years below their actual age, and many are much further behind.

Scotland’s literacy challenges are not a recent development, but they are getting worse. The Clackmannanshire study, which was published in the early 2000s, was a landmark piece of research, but ministers have failed to deliver what that research suggested. At the same time, literacy rates in England are improving, so we need to learn from some of the teaching down south. Specifically, I appeal to the cabinet secretary to look at how we can reform literacy teaching in schools.

Over the recess, I looked at phonics teaching, and there are compelling findings from the work that is taking place in English schools. I hope that the cabinet secretary will be open to pursuing that approach, because the effectiveness of phonics teaching is now quite obvious. The study found that children who were taught phonics excelled not only in word reading but in comprehension and spelling. Despite those compelling findings, Scotland has made limited progress in implementing the study’s recommendations at the national level. That is why I make no apologies for the approach that I intend to take in focusing on outcomes and looking at how we can empower our teaching professionals.

There is nothing more important for the future of Scotland than the education that we provide for our young people to enable them to go on to achieve their potential. After 17 years of SNP Government, the facts are that classroom standards are plummeting, violence is rising, young Scots—often those from the poorest backgrounds—are being left behind, teacher numbers in Scotland are declining, secure full-time posts are scarce and there is the risk of cuts to school hours and to the number of additional support assistants. In the coming weeks and months ahead of the election, the Scottish Conservatives will demonstrate how we want to bring common sense back to our classrooms and put Scottish education back to where it should be—at the top of international league tables.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the Scottish Government withholding £145 million in funding from local authorities will risk teacher numbers across Scotland declining further; notes that teacher numbers in Scotland have already been declining for two years in a row; acknowledges that many teachers are already struggling to obtain permanent employment; recognises the efforts of the Scottish Teachers for Permanence Campaign, which represents 3,800 teachers searching for permanent work in Scotland; expresses alarm about potential cuts to classroom assistant numbers and the school week due to shortfalls in local authority funding from the Scottish Government, and believes that Scottish Government funding should be used to improve Scotland’s schools.