Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Official Report 898KB pdf

---

Topical Question Time

---

Named Person Scheme

Before I call Elaine Smith, I advise members that legal proceedings are on-going in relation to the legislative competence of the named person provisions. The matter is therefore sub judice for the purposes of standing orders, so members should not refer to the specifics of the case.

1.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will review the named person scheme in light of recent reports that the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman has raised concerns. (S4T-01341)

The SPSO has raised a technical concern about Parliament’s general approach to complaints procedures and the process in particular that relates to the complaints process for parts 4 and 5 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. As Elaine Smith will recall, the measures were supported by all groups and passed unanimously at stage 3 of the bill. They included provision for using the affirmative procedure for the regulations that detail the content of the process, the draft order for which was considered by the Education and Culture Committee today.

I am not aware of any concerns that the ombudsman has in relation to the named person service or the approach taken to the complaints procedure. Indeed, the ombudsman was keen to emphasise his support in his recent letter, and today’s news release makes it clear that the letter to the committee does not comment on the service itself and is

“about a minor technical point”.

On the wider issue about statutory complaints procedures more generally, the member in her role as Deputy Presiding Officer might be well placed to progress the issue. I would be happy to discuss matters with her from the perspective of our recent experience.

I note that, although the ombudsman’s concerns are specifically about process, there are wider concerns among the many constituents who have contacted me recently. For example, I understand that the Scottish Government has endorsed a toolkit for councils and teachers to use to structure questions to children. Will the minister confirm whether that is the case? If it is, what oversight and monitoring of how the toolkit is used does the Scottish Government have in place to ensure that questions are appropriate and responses are treated with care and confidentiality?

I am not aware that the Scottish Government is using any test around the named person. If the member has specific issues that she wants to raise with me, I will be happy to speak with her and discuss the matter in those terms.

I thank the minister for that offer, which I will certainly take up. If any professionals who are involved in the named person scheme have concerns about how information is being used and they want to report that, will they be protected by whistleblowing legislation?

Further, the Educational Institute of Scotland has expressed concerns over the potential for teachers to be left with increased workloads and to be required to work on the additional responsibilities over their holidays. Has the Government taken any steps to quantify the likely impact on teachers’ workload?

We have worked with the EIS and a number of different organisations and bodies about the legislation. We did that during the bill process, as well as through the consultation on the guidance. We will continue to work with anyone and, again, the offer is there to continue with that dialogue.

It remains the case that the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 provides a robust framework to allow for appropriate, proportionate information sharing to happen in a way that was not there in the past. That will allow us to ensure that the relevant information about the child’s needs and the family is shared with appropriate people in conjunction and collaboration with the parents on what they can say to that family member and whether they are content for that to happen. A robust framework is in place that has been enabled through the passage of the 2014 act.

Does the minister agree that the scheme could be helpful for a vulnerable family in my constituency who are not sure where to go to for help? The named person scheme will make it clearer and easier for them to get help.

Absolutely. The whole thrust of the legislation is to stop what we have been told about in various consultations, the parenting strategy and the Highland pathfinder, which is that families are fed up being passed from pillar to post, going from service to service trying to explain their story time and again.

The named person is part of the getting it right for every child process. It allows for a co-ordinated approach to provide families with the support that they need at an earlier point in order to avoid issues escalating into crises and costlier services having to be deployed and, far more important, to avoid the damaging impact that there is on the family if matters are left to grow and escalate. The named person is about early intervention and prevention and helping families when they need it most. The named person will deliver that. Again, I am happy to meet John Mason to discuss the issues that he may have.

Does the minister accept that parents’ greatest concern about the named person policy is about data sharing and whether it is wholly transparent? Does she agree that the concern raised by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman about the overly regulatory nature of the complaints process could extend those concerns? The ombudsman is flagging up that the Scottish Government is proposing an unwieldy complaints system that is at odds with the systems in other public sector areas.

As I said in response to Elaine Smith, the 2014 act provides a robust framework to allow for that information sharing to happen in a proportionate and appropriate way. It provides that reassurance that families deserve.

The order that was agreed to today at the Education and Culture Committee is aligned to other complaints procedures. I remind the member that the amendments that I lodged during the passage of stage 3 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill took cognisance of the very valid points that Liz Smith raised at stage 2, and placed a duty and a responsibility on Scottish ministers to develop and implement a complaints procedure for parts 4 and 5 of the bill, and set out the issues that we might want to progress in secondary legislation. That is exactly what I did earlier today at the committee. The approach was agreed to by all parties during stage 3.

I remind the member that, in his news release, the ombudsman reiterated that what he has raised is “a minor technical point”. We have worked with the SPSO on a number of occasions during the development of the order, which I am glad received approval earlier today. If the member wants to raise a particular issue, she should do so but, given some of the comment on the matter, I have to say that the minor technical issue that the ombudsman raised has been used as a vehicle for more posturing and grandstanding on a policy that is designed to help families and protect children.

---

College Bursaries (Budgets)

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on reports that 67 per cent of colleges had committed all of or more than their bursary budget by December 2015. (S4T-01334)

We have invested a record level in further education student support this year—more than £105 million, which is an increase of 29 per cent in real terms since 2006-07. FE-level college students can now receive a non-repayable bursary of up to £94.52 per week, which is the best level anywhere in the United Kingdom.

Colleges have told the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council what they need to meet their student support commitments this year. We shall meet those commitments in full.

National Union of Students Scotland president, Vonnie Sandlan, said this week that college budgets are “overstretched and underfunded” and that students have no certainty about the funding that they might receive. She went on to claim that that is “a disaster” for college students, who are some of those most in need.

The principal of Edinburgh College told the Education and Culture Committee this morning that a lack of financial support for students is a major disincentive and is leading many students to drop out very early.

Does the cabinet secretary agree with Vonnie Sandlan and Annette Bruton? Can she tell the Parliament how many college students drop out each year, and how many have dropped out so far this year, because of a lack of financial support?

It is unfortunate that Mr McArthur did not welcome this Government’s commitment to meet in full the shortfall in student support this year—as we have done in every year.

There are broader issues in the context of future changes to student support, particularly in the FE sector. I am alive to the debate about an entitlement-based system, as we have in higher education—although of course in HE students repay the financial support that they receive for their studies—versus a discretionary system with non-repayable financial support.

Mr McArthur will remember from our discussion in the committee this morning that positive destination, completion and retention rates in the sector are improving under this Government.

The cabinet secretary complained about a lack of welcome for her action, but I was simply quoting Vonnie Sandlan, of NUS Scotland, on the welcome that she has given college budgets. The Scottish Government gave colleges only half the money that they said that they needed to meet the pressure for bursaries.

Ministers have a choice. Liberal Democrats have proposed a penny tax rise for education, which would raise £475 million to transform education, invest in our colleges and help people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Rather than cut 152,000 places and provide inadequate bursary support for students who need it, why will the minister not act to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to gain the skills that they need to get on in life?

This Government is acting to provide FE students with the support that they need. The shortfall in student support this year is much smaller than it has been in previous years. We will meet our commitments in full, as we have done in previous years, to ensure that there is no shortfall.

It is surely to be welcomed that under this Government there has been a real-terms increase in student support. That does not mean that there cannot be improvements to the student support system. Indeed, the SFC has had a review of the system and we took early action, at the request of NUS Scotland, to deal with the variance rule, whereby some colleges were paying bursaries at 80 per cent of the bursary rate, as opposed to 100 per cent. I am pleased to say that from 2016-17 we will ensure that students receive 100 per cent of the award that is granted.

---

Good Food Nation

To ask the Scottish Government what its plans are for Scotland to become a good food nation by 2025. (S4T-01339)

The Scottish Government’s vision and priorities for Scotland to become a good food nation by 2025 were set out in the “Becoming a Good Food Nation” discussion document in June 2014. They included the establishment of the Scottish food commission, which published its first interim report last week. The report sets out a refreshed vision and five clear objectives, each with indicators, so that progress on the journey towards 2025 can be measured. The Government is working to achieve those objectives, in close partnership with stakeholders in the food sector and more widely.

The cabinet secretary will know how much I have worked over the years to encourage the people of Scotland to buy and eat Scottish food, as it is the best choice for our environment, our food security, our health and the sustainability of our communities. What are the Scottish Government’s plans to ensure that major retailers give Scottish consumers a real choice to buy Scottish produce?

I should start off by saying that I well know how much effort Christian Allard has put in over recent years to promote Scottish produce, particularly Scottish seafood. In our work with the retailers, that is an objective that we have also been pursuing, with some degree of success, it has to be said, given that sourcing Scottish brands across these islands by United Kingdom retailers has increased by around a third since 2007. Over and above that, there have been many other initiatives. We have been working in a bespoke way with a number of retailers on supplier developer programmes, so that Scottish suppliers can get more shelf space, not just in Scottish stores but across the UK. We also have think local campaigns that have helped local sourcing across Scotland.

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, but I was looking for something more practical that we can do in the future to encourage many major retailers to sell Scottish dairy produce, seafood and meat, to ensure that they not only advertise Scottish produce but that they really put it on the shelves.

Alex Fergusson.

I will answer if you like, Presiding Officer.

Cabinet secretary, would you like to have a wee shot at answering that question?

I would be more intrigued to hear Alex Fergusson’s response, but I will take the opportunity to give my own answer.

As I said to Christian Allard in my previous answer, a number of initiatives are taking place with the retailers, not least in the dairy sector, where I have been trying to persuade the UK Government to convene a summit of the heads of the UK retail and food service sectors, so that we can make specific efforts to get more dairy produce on to Scottish and UK shelves from Scottish producers, particularly as much of our butter and cheese is imported from other countries despite the fact that we produce a lot of good produce on our own doorstep. That is something practical that I am still working on, and I hope that the UK Government will give that sector more support in the future than it has had so far.

I call Alex Fergusson.

I am not sure whether to give a question or an answer, Presiding Officer, but I will go with the question.

Becoming a good food nation is all well and good and very laudable, as indeed is the success of Scotland’s food and drink initiative, but what is the Government doing to ensure that the benefits of those laudable policies actually reach the primary producer on which they depend, because primary producers across the board are struggling as never before?

Cabinet secretary, have you got an answer this time?

I wish that I had an answer to that question, because it is one of the biggest questions facing the future of Scottish producers. Although we have seen a phenomenal success taking place in Scotland’s food and drink sector, where targets have been smashed six years early and exports are up by more than 50 per cent since 2007, it is the case—and I agree with Alex Fergusson’s point—that the primary producer has not felt that benefit to the same degree as the rest of the supply chain. That highlights the fact that the supply chain is dysfunctional to a degree, and although no one national Government will be able to sort that out, it is certainly a big question that should face future policy makers not only in this country but across the whole of Europe. I would like to see a greater focus at European level on that question. Indeed, the European Commission will shortly publish a report on supply chain issues, and I hope that it flags up some issues that we can pursue here in Scotland and that will be pursued across Europe to ensure that the primary producer gets a fair share of every pound spent on food in this country.

Can the cabinet secretary advise the chamber on how Food Standards Scotland fits into the vision of a good food nation?

That is a fair question, given that the first anniversary of the creation of Food Standards Scotland is approaching.

The new body is already making a real contribution across a range of activities, particularly on nutrition, labelling and diet. In addition, a unit to deal with food crime has recently been set up. That is one advantage of the creation of the new body.

Food Standards Scotland also has observer status on the food commission that is up and running in Scotland, to ensure that its input is taken on board as we make the journey towards becoming a good food nation.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Could you confirm that questions by MSPs on the issue of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman’s comment on the named person scheme are a legitimate part of MSPs holding the Government to account? As far as the code of conduct is concerned, I trust that the minister meant no discourtesy to MSPs when she referred to political posturing on the issue.

The member is very well aware that the responses that the minister gives have nothing to do with me as the Presiding Officer.