Chamber and committees

What does “substantially eliminate” mean?

I am just trying to get a definition of what “substantially eliminate” means. We all thought before that you were going to abolish the gap completely, but now we understand that the position has been refined. We could argue about how that developed, but I am still unclear about how we know whether the gap has been substantially eliminated. Is there a number? Are you expecting the gap to reach a certain level, which you would call “substantially eliminating” it? If so, what is it?

It is important, however. The attainment gap is massive—enormous—and we were slipping down the international rankings. That is why the OECD report was commissioned, so there was a crisis, and I have to say that the way in which the cabinet secretary presented it sounded incredibly complacent.

It is not that hypothetical.

For the first time ever, the fees that come from international students for Scottish universities surpass domestic fees. The exposure, which is greater than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom, is substantial. The cross-subsidy is not just with education but with research. It is a realistic issue, and I would hope that it has been considered. You do not need to tell me now what the details of the discussions are, but China invading Taiwan is not an unrealistic prospect, and we have large numbers of Chinese students here. The threat is real, and the threat is bigger here than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. I know that an international university and higher education piece of work is under way just now, but I want to know that you have considered that realistic threat and have a plan for it.

That is the point, is it not? Some institutions are really exposed, whereas others might not be. Therefore, the threat is even greater to some.

We all appreciate the sensitive way in which you have just addressed that issue, Deputy First Minister. I have met many of the Fornethy survivors, and one can tell that the experience has deeply affected their whole life. I think that they, and everybody here, will appreciate the way in which you have tried to navigate through the difficult legal territory, and I hope that we can find a resolution, because those women deserve justice and fairness.

I want to draw on your wider reflections on the whole process of redress, which is not just about a financial transaction or an application process—people are opening up to you and telling you all their experiences, as happened with the child abuse inquiry. Anybody that they open up to—particularly a Government—has a responsibility and a duty to take that information and treat it with care. It is about the human being as much as the finance.

Now that you are several months into that process, what are your reflections on it? How have you been able to help and assist those individuals? I know that many organisations out there are doing the same work, but people have opened up to you, so what have you learned from the process and what have you reflected on? Do you think that the system that we have in place to carry those people with care is sufficient, if it ever can be so?

I am not sure that it is correct to brand the senior people that we have had appearing before the committee as recalcitrant and resistant to change. Claire Burns from CELCIS talked about concerns about “unpicking everything”. Martin Crewe, who has decades of experience in children’s services, said:

“I cannot see that the national care service would have a big positive impact.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 16 November 2022; c 36.]

Jackie Irvine, from the Care Inspectorate, talked about “disruption”. I am not sure that it is right to dismiss them as simply being resistant to change.

My main question is about the fact that children’s services were clearly an afterthought. Why were they not included in the Feeley report, and why have you still not decided, even though the bill is currently going through the legislative process, whether they will be included?

Why can you not give me a figure, Mr Stewart?

No—I am not asking you to pluck a figure; I am just asking you to give me an accurate one. I cannot understand that. It proves my point that you are making it up as you go along. You do not know how much the proposals will cost.