Scottish Parliament, 20 May 2015

272 contributions from 52 members. The official report.

Point of Order

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Good afternoon, everyone.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wish to raise a point of order under sections 4.1 and 6 of our rules on the submission of motions, insofar as they apply to motion S4M-13203, on the future of Scotland’s economy, in the name of Jackie Baillie. Let me say at the outset that I welcome any debate at any time on the economy and education, and I hope that I will be called to speak in the debate later.

The motion references a document, apparently from the University of Edinburgh, that cannot be found publicly available. I invite you to consider whether it thus may be in breach of Parliament’s rules on motions, at section 4.1, which states:

“The text of motions ... should not disclose any information that is ... confidential”.

I invite you, as Presiding Officer, under section 6, to consider what guidance you might give us on the matter. For the avoidance of doubt, for yourself and for colleagues, I am raising the matter as an individual and not as a committee convener.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I thank the member for the advance notice of that point of order. He referred to the admissibility criteria that are set out in the “Guidance on Motions”. In particular, he refers to the point that

“The text of motions ... should not disclose ... information that is confidential”.

He asserts that the information referred to is confidential, as it is not publicly available.

In this particular case, the information is in the public domain, as it was raised during First Minister’s questions last week and has also been covered in the media. The motion therefore meets the criteria for admissibility. However, in general terms, debates are better informed where information referred to in motions is easily available to all. That is our position.

Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio questions.

Benefit Reductions

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what representations it will make to the United Kingdom Government to oppose the reported additional £12 billion in benefit reductions. (S4O-04334)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

As the First Minister made clear last week, the UK Government has not set out the details of how it will achieve the £12 billion of benefit reductions proposed in the Conservative manifesto. We know that, if Scotland takes a proportionate share of the proposed £12 billion, benefit expenditure in Scotland could be reduced by about £1 billion.

We are very clear that we oppose further measures that will have an impact on the vulnerable in communities across Scotland, and the member can rest assured that we will make that case strongly to the UK Government. The situation is causing anxiety and distress to many people. It is incumbent on all of us in this Parliament to build alliances to argue for the protection of the vulnerable against deeper social security cuts.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

David Cameron suggested as long ago as 2012 that under-25s might have their housing benefit withdrawn by a future UK Conservative Government. Estimates show that there are more than 4,500 under-25s on housing benefit in Glasgow region alone, and more than 28,000 across Scotland. Such cuts would inflict untold misery on young Scots and would exacerbate homelessness. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, in the first instance, the UK Government should abandon any plans to erode the basic human rights of young Scots to a home, and that ultimately this place, Scotland’s Parliament, should make all future decisions on welfare provisions for our nation?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I agree with Mr Doris on both points. We know from the Tory manifesto that the proposal is to remove housing benefit from 18 to 21-year-olds, which would affect around 7,000 young people in Scotland. We believe that there is a better alternative to that austerity and those cruel measures, and that it would be far better if this Parliament had full control over all social security matters, because we would take a much fairer and more humane approach to all aspects of social security than that being taken by the UK Government at Westminster.

City of Edinburgh Council (Local Development Plan)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

2. Will the cabinet secretary agree to allow—

I apologise; I was reading my supplementary question.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Start again.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the City of Edinburgh Council regarding its proposed local development plan. (S4O-04335)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I would have been happy to answer the first question.

The council published a proposed local development plan in 2013 and a second in 2014. My officials have discussed both proposed plans with council officials on a number of occasions, as part of their general liaison with the planning authority and in specific discussions regarding the plan.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I am aware that there have been lots of meetings, but will the cabinet secretary agree to take a fresh look at the plan to allow the council to prioritise brownfield developments and empower it to stop land banking, which has resulted in crucial sites not being brought forward for development? Does he understand the anger that many communities have about the fact that land in their areas will be brought forward for development under the plan, but without the council having the funding to invest in vital schools, social care and decent transport infrastructure?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am very sympathetic to the points that Sarah Boyack makes. There is a great deal of brownfield land in Edinburgh. Much of it has received planning permission for development, but no development has taken place. In a city the size of Edinburgh, which is Scotland’s capital, we need to get a better balance between development on brownfield sites and development on greenfield sites.

The points that are raised by Sarah Boyack are relevant to the discussion on the local development plan in Edinburgh. When, eventually, the LDP comes to us for comment and decisions, we will be conscious of the need to establish and then maintain that balance.

Cameron Buchanan (Conservative, Lothian)

Has the cabinet secretary any idea of how we can incentivise development on brownfield sites? That is part of the problem—there is no incentive to build on them.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I recognise that, by definition, it can be difficult to build on some brownfield sites, although many brownfield sites are actually almost as easy to develop as greenfield sites. However, I take the member’s point that, in some cases, there might be a need to incentivise developers to build on such sites. I am entirely open to any suggestions as long as they are proportionate, provided that public money is put to good use and that these sites would not be developed without additional public money in the form of incentives.

I have no objection to the point that the member makes and have every sympathy with it. There is a need for much closer partnership between the private and public sectors in order to encourage the development of certain brownfield sites, not just the granting of planning permission to develop.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Brief questions and answers will help us to get through the questions.

Housing Benefit (Young People)

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what the impact will be on young people in Scotland of the United Kingdom Government’s proposal to end housing benefit for people under 21. (S4O-04336)

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The Conservative Party election manifesto proposed that 18 to 21-year-olds on jobseekers allowance should no longer have an automatic entitlement to housing benefit. If housing benefit were to end for all people under 21 in Scotland, it would affect around 7,000 young people and take away more than £30 million a year in housing benefit payments from those in the 18 to 20 age group.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I thank the minister for that answer, and note that I listened intently to the cabinet secretary’s answer to Bob Doris’s question earlier.

We are undoubtedly agreed that it would be an extremely good idea for this area to be within our control, but it is not yet. Given that that is the case, what discussions has the minister had with local authorities about the implications of the proposal for their budgets?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The issue is part of our discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the welfare reform group. As the cabinet secretary said, we and much of civic Scotland made the case for the full devolution of social security, to ensure that we can have a more joined-up system that can help the most vulnerable. That is what we are working towards, along with our stakeholders in local government and the third sector.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Further to that answer, what representations has the minister made with regard to protecting particularly vulnerable groups such as looked-after children—those who have been subject to abuse in their family home—where separate housing is absolutely vital no matter what age they are?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

I completely agree with the member that separate housing is vital in a number of circumstances; we have always made that case and we will continue to make that case. We are opposed to any measure to cut housing benefit for young people. We will continue to oppose such measures and I hope that we will get support from others across the chamber to do that. We are certainly actively looking at the matter in our discussions with our third sector and local authority partners and we recognise the issues that Richard Simpson raises.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 4, in the name of Christian Allard, has not been lodged and a less than satisfactory explanation has been provided.

Local Communities (Devolution of Powers)

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to devolve powers to local communities. (S4O-04338)

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill will deliver significant new rights and powers for communities across Scotland. We want to empower communities through the ownership of land and buildings and strengthen their voices in the decisions that matter to them.

However, we are always open to discussing new approaches, such as the groundbreaking discussions of the island areas ministerial working group, which culminated in our prospectus for the islands. There is no single solution or magic bullet for empowerment and I welcome the interest and thoughts of members across the chamber.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

I thank the minister for that interesting reply. Many believe that communities should have in law a Scottish community right to challenge, which would give community and voluntary bodies the right to express an interest in taking over a particular council-run service. A local authority would be required to respond and, unless there were reasonable grounds for refusal, to run a procurement process.

A community right to challenge could devolve real power to those who live and breathe such services in their communities. Will the Scottish Government consider material and substantive devolution such as that to communities?

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I can extend warm words to Jackson Carlaw and the good news that the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill will introduce participation requests, which are a great deal more flexible than the community right to challenge and will allow communities to choose the degree of involvement that they want to have in improving a public service. Unlike the right to challenge, participation requests will not open up local services to privatisation, which would force communities to bid against huge outsourcing companies.

Ken Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab)

One of the powers that are devolved to local authorities is the power to charge for social care. The Scotland against the care tax campaign would like the Government to use its power to abolish care charges altogether, but the Government has responded that it would prefer to work with local authorities. What progress has been made? As far as I can understand, no progress at all has been made to introduce equity or move towards abolition. Will the minister update us on the progress that has been made on abolishing care charges?

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Discussions are on-going and are being led by my colleague Shona Robison, who I am sure would be happy to write to the member to update him on work in progress.

Human Rights Act 1998

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what representations it has made to the United Kingdom Government concerning the Human Rights Act 1998. (S4O-04339)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

On Friday, I wrote to Michael Gove, the new Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, to reiterate the Scottish Government’s opposition to the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998. The First Minister also raised the matter directly with the Prime Minister when they met last Friday. I have sought an early meeting with Mr Gove to further underline our concerns. I know that those concerns are shared by the overwhelming majority of members in the Parliament, as was shown by the vote last November.

Last week, I undertook to keep the Parliament informed of the progress of the discussions, and I am happy to reiterate that undertaking today. The UK Government’s programme for the first session of the new UK Parliament will be set out in the Queen’s speech on 27 May. My colleague the Minister for Parliamentary Business will update the Scottish Parliament on the legislative consent implications of the Queen’s speech in due course.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I am grateful that the cabinet secretary has expressed this Parliament’s abhorrence for what is proposed. In his letter, did he raise the necessity of a legislative consent motion, which clearly will not be approved by this Parliament? Is it not the case that what is proposed drives a coach and horses through the Scotland Act 1998 as well as potentially putting the UK outside the family of nations that are committed to universal human rights?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 and withdrawal from the European convention on human rights have potentially huge implications, not just for the Scotland Act 1998 but for the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland. We have made it absolutely clear that there will be no co-operation from this Government on the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998. Such a measure is regressive and reactionary and is entirely the wrong thing to do. If the opportunity arises for us to frustrate the passage of such legislation in any way whatsoever, I am sure that most members in the Scottish Parliament will be united in exploiting that opportunity to the full.

Access to Work Scheme

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact on disabled people in Scotland of the Department for Work and Pensions proposal to cap the access to work scheme. (S4O-04340)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The Scottish Government has sought urgent assurances from the Department for Work and Pensions on how its intention to cap the support that is available through the access to work scheme will impact on disabled people in Scotland. The DWP estimates, based on current delivery, that the number of individuals who are likely to be affected in Scotland is small. Nonetheless, we are continuing to work with the DWP to better understand the future impact of those changes in Scotland and to press for assurance that those who are affected will receive the support that they require.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am pleased that the matter is being considered further, because the access to work scheme is a success at providing support to disabled people to enable them to access and sustain employment. What action is the Scottish Government taking to support disabled people in accessing employment?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

We are taking a number of actions. They include the delivery of “Developing the Young Workforce—Scotland’s Youth Employment Strategy”, which has been debated in the chamber; developing outcomes with community jobs Scotland specifically for vulnerable groups; and improving the uptake of modern apprenticeships by disabled people, which we also discussed last week. In that regard, we have committed £500,000 to delivering an equalities action plan that will be published in autumn 2015 and will contain specific improvement targets for—among others—those who are disabled.

We are promoting and supporting the supported employment framework and are working closely with partners, including local authorities, to support them to develop and deliver the model locally. We see supported businesses as one small but important part of the overall support that is available to disabled people.

Child Poverty (West Scotland)

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce child poverty in West Scotland. (S4O-04341)

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

We take a national approach to tackling the long-term drivers of poverty, through early intervention and prevention. Our commitment to building a fairer Scotland and tackling inequality is one of three key themes of the programme for Government.

As part of that programme, we are further promoting the living wage across all sectors; delivering on our commitment to 600 hours of free childcare for three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds; and providing approximately £296 million from 2013-14 to 2015-16 to help those who are affected by the United Kingdom Government’s welfare reforms. Over the current session of Parliament, we are investing more than £1.7 billion in affordable housing.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

Has the minister read Renfrewshire Council’s report “Tackling Poverty in Renfrewshire”? What specific actions will the Scottish Government take in response to the recommendation that calls on it to

“Allocate school resources to reflect levels of deprivation, and specifically link these resources to closing the attainment gap and ensuring more pupils from low income families reach positive destinations”?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The Scottish Government is committed to raising attainment in education and has recently announced that it has put funding into that very purpose, to encourage those from disadvantaged areas to gain access to education.

We put tackling poverty and inequality at the heart of Government through policies such as the council tax freeze and free prescriptions and by working with local authorities, the national health service and others to tackle child poverty. Our “Annual Report for the Child Poverty Strategy for Scotland” highlights the work that has been undertaken by local government, the third sector and business and introduces a full measurement framework that will provide an overview of the current position on key outcomes against which progress will be measured in future annual reports.

In addition, the Government is committed to appointing an independent adviser on poverty and inequality who will report directly to the First Minister.

Apprenticeships (Woodwork)

Cameron Buchanan (Conservative, Lothian)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to increase the number of apprenticeships in woodwork. (S4O-04344)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The modern apprenticeship programme is driven by the demand of employers, rather than by the Government. However, we are committed to expanding the number of MA opportunities each year to 30,000 by 2020. Additional MAs, including more higher-level and STEM—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—opportunities, will help to create a competitive and dynamic business environment to support sustainable economic growth and higher-quality jobs.

Specifically on woodwork, a number of MA frameworks already include woodwork, including ones in construction, wood and timber and furniture, furnishings and interiors. The number of starts on those frameworks has risen significantly, from 61 in 2012-13 to more than 1,300 in 2014-15.

Cameron Buchanan (Conservative, Lothian)

What is the Scottish Government doing to encourage the combination of business acumen and skills training in modern apprenticeships?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In our modern apprenticeship programme, we work closely with a number of sectors. As I said in my initial response, the programme is driven by the demand of employers, so of course we work closely with business to ensure that the programme meets its needs as well as the needs of the young people who learn the vital skills that they need to make their way in life while, crucially, earning a wage.

Skills Shortages (Key Industries)

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to address skills shortages in key industries of economic growth. (S4O-04345)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Through the development of sectoral skills investment plans and regional skills assessments, we are committed to delivering demand-led skills provision to meet the skills needs of key industries and the wider Scottish economy. The plans, which are developed by Skills Development Scotland in conjunction with industry bodies, provide a framework for businesses and employers to articulate the skills that are needed to support the development of Scotland’s growth sectors. The SIPs have been developed to identify and respond to the skills priorities that are required to support the industrial sectors in achieving their growth potential.

During 2013-14, there were 25,284 modern apprenticeship starts, with more than 70 occupational frameworks available. In delivering that programme, the Scottish Government directs Skills Development Scotland to prioritise places on frameworks that relate to Government economic strategy growth sectors.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that a number of industries, including the construction industry and the science, technology, engineering and mathematics sector, have recently warned of a looming skills shortage that threatens their economic growth. She mentioned modern apprenticeships, which offer a great opportunity for people to earn as they learn and to train Scotland’s young people and give them the skills that they need for sustainable employment. What steps can the Scottish Government take to more effectively match apprenticeship opportunities with industries that are identified as being most in need of additional skilled employees?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

People need to keep it in their minds that, as the member will have heard from my colleague Annabelle Ewing, the apprenticeship programme is in effect employer led. We do not create the jobs; it is the employers who do that and then we provide the means by which they can become modern apprenticeships. However, the member mentions a number of sectors with which—I hope that he will be glad to know—I have already had close conversation. They include the construction sector. I visited the national construction college during the Easter recess and I discussed road haulage issues with the newly formed group in that area. We are all aware of the challenge in the digital skills area. We continue to have dialogue with employers in those areas, but we rely enormously on the trade bodies to flag up potential shortages so that, instead of having to work reactively, we can begin to work more proactively.

Skills and Training (Fife Economy)

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is taking under the fair work, skills and training portfolio to support the Fife economy. (S4O-04346)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Scottish Government is committed to the economic development of Fife and is using all the levers at our disposal to maximise investment, support economic growth and create jobs. The fair work, skills and training portfolio provides significant support to, for example, young people in Fife through the employability fund, opportunities for all, the modern apprenticeship programme and the developing the young workforce initiative and other such initiatives. In addition, the Government has demonstrated its commitment to economic development in Fife through its support for Fife Council’s delivery of the business gateway service and of course for Scottish Enterprise. As the member will be well aware, we also have the on-going work of the recently established joint task force, to which we have committed an initial £6 million.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In her reply, the minister acknowledged the situation at Tullis Russell, where many workers are facing redundancy. I also welcome the task force report that was published last week by the Scottish Government and Fife Council. Part of the plan is £100,000 for immediate training needs, which will be followed by £500,000 for further skills development and training. The minister talked about what we are providing for young people, but most of the workforce at Tullis Russell is aged over 40. What will she do in her role to ensure that there are appropriate training and skills opportunities for the more mature and experienced workforce?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I know that, in representing Fife, the member takes a keen interest in the work of the joint task force, and we wish it all success.

With regard to the spending that was announced recently—the initial sum of £100,000 to respond to immediate training needs and a further £500,000 for skills development and training in the short term—I will be working closely with the enterprise minister and with Fife Council to ensure that that money is spent where it is needed most. I give that assurance to the member that that is how we intend to proceed.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

In relation to the Fife task force, is the minister happy that the money that has been allocated for immediate training needs will be adequate? Can it be reviewed if it proves to be inadequate?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The decisions that were taken at the task force meeting last Thursday were stated to be initial responses. It is the work of the task force that will direct the progress based on how we are dealing with the challenges on the ground. I am sure that the enterprise minister will keep the member and others fully informed of the important work of the task force. I know that all members of all parties in the chamber wish the task force all success.

Employment Opportunities for Young People (East Lothian Council)

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what support it will provide for East Lothian Council to increase employment opportunities for young people. (S4O-04347)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

East Lothian Council will benefit from the wide range of programmes and services that are funded by the Scottish Government. Young people in East Lothian will continue to have access to our expanding modern apprenticeship programme, the educational maintenance allowance, activity agreements, the youth employment Scotland fund and community jobs Scotland, to name but some.

In March, we notified local authorities of their share of the £6.5 million funding in 2014-15 to support the implementation of the developing the young workforce programme. In partnership with educational institutions and other agencies, East Lothian Council is preparing an implementation plan to continue to reduce youth unemployment in the area.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The minister is absolutely right that the local council has prepared an implementation plan for its element of the Government’s developing the young workforce strategy. The council has a good track record in these areas, not least with projects such as the East Lothian hospitality and tourism academy, which has become well known for providing opportunities for young people. However, I want to ask specifically what financial support the council will receive to carry out its share of this Government plan. After all, the Government has required it to find £11 million-worth of cuts in the next three years.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The allocation for 2014-15 under the developing the young workforce programme—if that is what the member is getting at—is £125,349. I understand that issues relating to the allocations for 2015-16 are currently under discussion. In allocating local authority funding, we have to work within the confines of the Scottish budget, which is of course set furth of this institution.

Access to Work Scheme

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the Department for Work and Pensions report, “Equality analysis for the future of Access to Work”. (S4O-04348)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I believe that Graeme Dey was in the chamber when I answered a similar question from Jackie Baillie in the previous portfolio questions. I reassure him that we continue to work with the DWP to understand better the future impact of the changes in Scotland, and to press for assurance that those who are affected receive the support that they require.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The report outlines that 89.5 per cent of those who would be affected by the proposed capping of awards at £40,800 are deaf or suffer from some degree of hearing loss. Does the cabinet secretary agree, in the light of that acknowledged consequence, that not only does the planned approach not square with the Conservative Party’s manifesto commitment to bring hundreds of thousands of disabled people into work, but means also that the Westminster Government will knowingly exclude a specific disability group from gaining meaningful employment?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

We are concerned about the impact that the cap may have on people who are deaf or who have hearing loss. We are committed to supporting the deaf community in Scotland and I fully recognise the importance of British Sign Language as a vital means of communication to help people find and stay in work.

In general terms, the Scottish Centre for Healthy Working Lives can offer advice to employers on how to make reasonable workplace adjustments to accommodate employees with disabilities, and can signpost people to organisations that can give more specific advice on particular disabilities and conditions. Of course, that requires assistance of the kind that has hitherto been available through the access to work scheme, so it is cause for concern if that is now to be cut, and especially if there is a differential impact on one specific group of disabled people.

Future Workforce (Skills)

Jayne Baxter (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to identify the skills that will be needed by the future workforce. (S4O-04349)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Through the development of sectoral skills investment plans and regional skills assessments, we committed to delivering demand-led skills provision to meet the needs of local labour markets and the wider Scottish economy. Developed by Skills Development Scotland in conjunction with industry bodies, the plans provide a framework for businesses and employers to articulate what are the right skills that are needed to support the development of Scotland’s growth sectors. The skills investment plans have been developed to identify and respond to the skills priorities that are required to support the industrial sectors in achieving their growth potential.

Jayne Baxter (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I note that earlier this year the Minister for Youth and Women’s Employment visited Fife College’s Stenton campus to learn about Fife’s engineering pathfinder project. Does the cabinet secretary agree that such partnership working, involving schools and employers, is an excellent way of meeting the needs of young people and local businesses? What steps will the Government take to encourage that approach across Scotland?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

That was a pilot project on foundation apprenticeships and we will be rolling it out. A considerable financial announcement was made earlier this week of £3.8 million to provide a further 500 modern apprenticeship places. That will focus on foundation apprenticeships as well as high-level apprenticeships.

I heard from my colleague in detail about the visit to which Jayne Baxter referred. I often repeat one of the anecdotes that she came back with, because the event seems to have been extraordinarily successful. There were perhaps not as many young girls involved as we might have wished to see, but there was a lesson to be learned from the school that did turn up with a number of young women. That is something that we want to keep an eye on.

Training (Former Members of Armed Services)

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

7. To ask the Scottish Government how it can assist former members of the armed services in training for a new career. (S4O-04350)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Scottish Government is determined to provide the highest possible support and opportunities for our veterans. We recognise that many veterans require additional support to enter work after leaving the armed forces. Early entry to Scottish Government funded projects is available to veterans, who are also able to take advantage of initiatives such as community jobs Scotland and the youth employment Scotland fund.

The recent “Transition in Scotland” report from Eric Fraser, the Scottish veterans commissioner, commented that opportunities for veterans should be promoted to demonstrate the skills, experience and resilience that veterans bring to our communities and the workplace. We will work with the commissioner to identify what further action might be taken to support that group.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

A recent survey by Poppyscotland found that 37 per cent of veterans said that the problems that they have encountered when seeking civilian employment were due to a lack of relevant training or skills, so what more can be done to maximise relevant training opportunities?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Roderick Campbell will likely be aware that the ministerial lead for armed forces and veterans issues is Keith Brown, who is the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities. I know that he continues to engage with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that the transitional support that is offered to service personnel is consistent with the approach that we seek to develop in Scotland.

The veterans commissioner identified in his report a number of areas where further work could be done to enhance support for service leavers in helping to prepare them for the civilian jobs market; in particular, the report identified the need for a comprehensive look at policies and the support that is available in Scotland for opening access to further and higher education for service leavers of all ages. The report also highlighted opportunities for further development, using examples such as the learning partnership that has been piloted by Glasgow Caledonian University with the armed forces, the three city colleges and Glasgow’s helping heroes project. The veterans commissioner is now looking at how the further and higher education sectors in Scotland can provide more support for service leavers and veterans.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the minister’s comments—in particular, in relation to support for veterans moving towards employment. Will the minister agree to have discussions with the veterans minister, Keith Brown, and Shona Robison about screening of veterans on coming out of the armed forces, in particular after they have been engaged in conflict? Many of them have unrecognised health problems that are a barrier to their achieving effective employment?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As a former active member of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on armed forces veterans, I am aware of the issue to which Dr Simpson refers and would be happy to raise it with Keith Brown and the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport, Shona Robison, and to seek a meeting. For the member’s information, I have already put in motion—the process of Government does not always work quickly, however—a request to meet the veterans commissioner about his report, in respect of its impacts on my portfolio.

Skills Needs (West Scotland)

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to meet skills needs in West Scotland. (S4O-04351)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

There are a number of programmes in place to develop the skills and employability of people in West Scotland, including our expanding modern apprenticeships programme, the employability fund and community jobs Scotland. That is alongside the provision that is available through regional colleges and, of course, university education. Through the development of sectoral skills investment plans and regional skills assessments, which for West Scotland included specific reports on Glasgow, Glasgow and Clyde Valley, and Ayrshire, we committed to delivering demand-led skills provision to meet the needs of local labour markets and the wider Scottish economy.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that many people need flexibility in order to balance training or retraining with employment and childcare requirements. Why did the recent Audit Scotland report find that there had since 2008-09 been a 48 per cent reduction in the number of part-time students going to college? Over the same period there has also been a 41 per cent drop in the number of over-25s going to college. Why is the Government happy to slam the college door on so many people who want to train or retrain?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Is not it interesting that we are just hearing the same old, same old from Labour? I think that that is rather unfortunate. We have said frequently in the chamber that in 2013-14 there was an increase of 3 per cent over the year in Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council funded full-time equivalents. There are a number of different things that can be said on the issue, not least of which is that work is being done with colleges to ensure that the studies that are undertaken direct people towards work. The courses that are no longer funded were not leading to employment. I would have expected that Labour would have wanted to support anything that directs people into courses that lead to employment when they come out of college. Instead, there is this constant refrain, which is achieving absolutely nothing.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 9, in the name of Jim Eadie, has been withdrawn and a satisfactory explanation has been provided.

Renewable Energy (Women in Engineering Roles)

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

10. To ask the Scottish Government how it is encouraging more women to take up engineering roles in the renewable energy sector. (S4O-04353)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We recognise that women are underrepresented in the renewables sector, including in engineering roles. We are taking action across a number of fronts to improve the situation, such as the recently announced £500,000 to develop and deliver a modern apprenticeships equalities action plan, which will include improvement targets for addressing gender imbalance. We also commissioned a full equalities impact assessment on the renewables route map, which will be published shortly as part of the route map update.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I thank the minister for that detailed answer. I hope that she welcomes the conclusions of a piece of work by a recent intern of mine, Lucy Moore, called “Women in Scottish renewables: breaking down the barriers to success”. Also, I wonder whether the minister will come to my constituency at some point to see the work of SSE, which is one of the leading firms in the renewables industry that could employ more women.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I was pleased to receive a copy of the research project report by Rob Gibson’s former intern Lucy Moore. I have raised with officials a number of points that are made in the report, and the points are currently being considered.

There is, of course, more work to be done to encourage more women to go into the renewables sector, and in that regard Rob Gibson might be interested to note that I am to meet in a few weeks representatives of Women in Renewable Energy Scotland, or WIRES. I wish to discuss with them how we can make further progress in encouraging women both to get jobs in the renewables sector and, crucially, to secure career progression in it.

I would be delighted to visit Rob Gibson’s constituency to see the good work that SSE is doing in this regard.

Scotland’s Economy

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-13203, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on the future of Scotland’s economy.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Today, Scotland remains a deeply unequal country, and that has a direct impact on our economy. Our objective to boost the economy at the same time as tackling inequality is, I believe, an ambition that is shared throughout the chamber, including by the Scottish Government.

There is no doubt that recent times have been tough for businesses throughout the country. Whether they are large or small, in manufacturing or retail, and in urban or rural Scotland, the economic downturn has had an impact. Markets were tighter, turnover declined and the workforce contracted. In short, the economy struggled, businesses suffered and working people experienced the worst cost-of-living crisis in decades.

Things are beginning to improve. The economy is showing signs of growth. Employment is increasing and confidence is starting to improve, too. However, the figures for the most recent quarter show a marked slowdown in that growth. Although I want to recognise the achievements of our businesses in growing our economy, we equally need to recognise that we have nothing to be complacent about. Despite the growth, the recovery is not shared by everyone who is in work. Too many people are caught in one of the worst cost-of-living crises in decades. There is continuing uncertainty, with zero-hours contracts, low wages and underemployment.

That matters if we are to address inequality, because it is not just a matter of fairness. It is also an economic issue. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the International Monetary Fund and others point out that countries that have relatively high degrees of wealth and income inequality have lower levels of economic growth.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

In a moment.

It is therefore in everyone’s interests to address the issue.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Mark McDonald.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Our economy—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I beg your pardon, Ms Baillie.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am happy to give way at this point if that helps.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Forgive me, Ms Baillie. I call Mark McDonald.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

I was perfectly happy to wait, but I thank the member for giving way. Has she had an opportunity to consider the call from the Scottish Trades Union Congress for us to look again at whether powers over employment, for example on the minimum wage and terms and conditions, should be included in the package of powers that are to be devolved to this Parliament, given the circumstances that arose in the recent general election?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I thank the member for his intervention. We will have an opportunity tomorrow to debate the full devolution package. I will also be speaking then, and I look forward to engaging with him on the substance of that issue.

Our economy needs to be rebalanced so that, when we talk about the number of jobs that have been created in our country, we are not simply counting temporary, low-paid, zero-hours contract jobs. We know that much of the vaunted recent rise in the employment figures is almost entirely down to an increase in part-time, low-paid, temporary jobs.

Just this week, we saw the BBC reveal that only 10 of Scotland’s 50 largest employers pay the living wage. Last week, a major employer, which is perhaps renowned for offering low-paid jobs and low-security work, saw the value of its shares rocket when the Tories secured their majority.

This Parliament is not a place to sit on our hands and moan about the United Kingdom Tory Government, although I confess that there will be lots of scope for that because there will be areas where we fundamentally disagree with it. The SNP promise in the general election was about securing a stronger voice for Scotland at Westminster. Our mantra here is surely about securing a stronger voice for fairness and social justice for the people of Scotland in this Parliament.

Scotland could have led the way in promoting better pay and banning exploitative zero-hours contracts through the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill, which was passed just last year. Unfortunately, as we all know, the SNP members joined with the Conservatives to vote against Scottish Labour plans for better pay and security of hours for workers, cleaners, carers and retail staff. They voted against those plans not just once but five times. The Scottish Government should use the power that it already has.

I have heard the Scottish Government demand the devolution of job-creating powers to this Parliament. I support our having a powerhouse Parliament that is able to tackle inequality and pursue social justice, but many of the powers that we need for economic development are already with this Parliament.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I urge the SNP to use those powers now to tackle the inequality that hampers our economy and the life chances of too many people. OECD research has shown that inequality has cost Scotland an estimated 8.5 per cent of gross domestic product over the past 25 years, and we know that a fairer economy is a better economy and that we all have a better chance of success if we all have the same opportunities to succeed. Inequality stifles economic growth, so we all want a strong and prosperous economy in which all share in that prosperity.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way now?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

On the basis that the member has a loud voice, I will give way.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

There was I thinking that I was meek and mild.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Never!

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

On equality, does Ms Baillie agree that this Parliament should have welfare powers rather than see the constant cuts that are coming from Westminster, which are having a major effect and are creating a more unequal society in Scotland?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The record continues in the same groove. I would have more respect for the member’s position if we worked together to use the powers that we have now to make a real difference for people instead of putting that off until some point in the future.

We need to create the opportunities to recalibrate our economy in the long term by making the best investment that any Government can make—investment in our people. Members do not need to take my word for it. A very famous economist, Professor Joseph Stiglitz, proposed three solutions to inequality in his book “The Great Divide: Unequal Societies and What We Can Do About Them”. Surprise, surprise, the third solution is education.

Education is much more than a social policy; it should be part of any Government’s strategy for long-term economic development. However, despite the SNP having had full control over education for nearly a decade, its track record on it, especially in attainment, is a national scandal.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s tone and comments in her lecture last night, in which she admitted that the Scottish Government should be doing much better in education. We will work with her to improve education in Scotland. However, it was the First Minister herself who said that

“a party that is ... in its second term of office cannot avoid taking responsibility for its own failings.”—[Official Report, 12 December 2001; c 4711.]

In educational attainment, the failings are severe, and we are failing our young people as a consequence. The number of young people in Scotland who are gaining national 3 to 5 qualifications dropped by 20 per cent in a year. That is more than 100,000 fewer young people getting the grades that they need to get on in life. Under the SNP, we have seen literacy levels in primary and secondary schools fall at every stage surveyed. The ministers are shaking their heads, but I did not make that up. Those are facts from surveys that have been undertaken—they are the Government’s own figures. Under the SNP, the proportion of pupils who are performing well or very well in reading fell between 2012 and 2014.

Those declines in performance can be seen at every stage surveyed—primary 4, primary 7 and the second year of high school. However, at every stage, pupils from the most well-off backgrounds are performing to a higher level than pupils in the middle and from the most deprived backgrounds. That should be a concern to us all.

To put that into context, the proportion of second year high school pupils from the poorest backgrounds performing well or very well in numeracy is a mere 25 per cent. That should shame us all.

Let me be clear about what that means. Under this SNP Government, Scotland’s children, especially those from the most deprived backgrounds, are not getting even the most basic skills. Our children’s ability to read, to write and to count has all gone backwards under the SNP. It is, without question, a national scandal. We cannot simply pay lip service and just say how bad the situation is and that the Scottish Government must take action, because this matters not just to those individuals but to the future state of our economy.

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning said that she planned to take stock after six months on the job. Although I welcome that, let me say as gently as I can that her Government has been in power for eight years, so taking stock after six months is not enough. All those failures, all that regression and all that denied opportunity has been taking place on the SNP’s watch.

A general pattern emerges when this Government is held to account on its record. It is our responsibility in this chamber to hold it to account, but I recall that opponents are often accused of talking down Scotland. Indeed, those who work in a service under scrutiny are used as a human shield. Let me be clear: when I point out the problems in education that we have in this country I am not blaming teachers or students; I am not even blaming parents. I lay the blame squarely at the door of this SNP Government.

Today, teacher numbers are at a 10-year low, with more than 4,000 fewer teachers in Scotland’s classrooms since the SNP came to power. Its 2007 manifesto promise to cut class sizes has been completely abandoned. Therefore, it is little wonder that we have gone backwards.

Closing the attainment gap in education will have a long-term benefit to our economy. Low attainers are more likely to be unemployed, working part-time and earning less. Those earnings are substantially less—they are more than £20 a week less for men and £40 a week less for women. Scottish Labour considers that closing the attainment gap should be Scotland’s number 1 priority, because that would be good for individuals and for our economy, too.

We want to see overall attainment rise. That should be the Government’s ambition, especially in the areas of literacy and numeracy where we have so far failed so badly. Our proposal is to close the attainment gap with £25 million a year of extra investment in our education system, which is £125 million over the parliamentary session. We would use that extra investment to double the number of teaching assistants and to employ 200 literacy teachers, and to focus their work in the communities with the 20 secondary schools and their associated primary schools where working-class kids have been most left behind by the SNP Government.

We are committed to raising the performance of the 20 per cent lowest-achieving pupils where they study. We will support the parents of those children to ensure that they have the reading and writing skills that they need to support their children. Those are the choices that we would make.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Will the member, to inform my speech, give me the cost of employing a literacy teacher and the cost of employing a classroom assistant?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am happy to tell the member that I am being advised that a classroom assistant costs £20,000 and, we think, £30,000 for a literacy teacher. I am happy to confirm that in writing to the member after the debate.

I also indicate to the member that, as a result of his point of order at the start of business today, we have placed at the back of the chamber a table that gives—I do not think that the member is listening; he is clearly not interested in the debate. Presiding Officer, for your benefit, I will say that we have placed at the back of the chamber the table to which the member referred in his earlier point of order.

I do not need to remind anyone in this chamber that the language of priorities is the religion of socialism. We would make the changes we propose by using the new powers coming to the Scottish Parliament to introduce a new top tax rate of 50p in the pound.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I need to make progress.

The investment is not just in our most disadvantaged pupils, so that they get a better start in life, but in the future strength of our economy. It is right that those with the broadest shoulders should pay a little more to deliver the investment that Scotland needs to be a fairer nation. After all, that is what progressive politics is all about.

Before the general election, the SNP wrapped itself in the red flag and adopted swathes of Labour policies: the mansion tax, the bankers’ bonus clawback and the 50p rate of income tax, which, through the Smith agreement, it will have the power to deliver soon enough.

I note that the Government’s amendment removes the mention that we make in our motion of using the proceeds of a 50p rate to invest in our education system and improve attainment. Why is that? Is the SNP about to backtrack on fair taxes? Only a few months ago, SNP MSPs voted against using a higher rate of tax to invest in our education system, yet within weeks the SNP backed the move in its manifesto. Which of those is its position?

Scottish Labour is clear: we will use fair taxes to close the attainment gap in this country, because we believe in progressive politics, and we will build a fairer Scotland and a stronger economy in doing so.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that tackling Scotland’s attainment gap is crucial to future economic performance, in recognition of OECD research demonstrating that inequality has caused a cumulated loss in GDP of 8.5% over 25 years; notes with concern new analysis by Dr Jim Scott of the University of Edinburgh showing that the number of candidates gaining levels 3 to 5 qualifications in the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF), the replacement for standard grades, dropped by 20% between 2012-13 and 2013-14; notes that standards in literacy and numeracy in Scottish schools have fallen since 2012, with 75% of S2 pupils from the most disadvantaged backgrounds not having the numeracy skills that they should; further notes with concern that spending on education and training fell in Scotland between 2009-10 and 2013-14 whereas it rose across the rest of the UK; notes with concern the subsequent fall in both funding and students in Scotland’s colleges; believes that a renewed focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects is required from the Scottish Government; recognises the recent establishment of the Scottish Attainment Challenge; welcomes clarification from the First Minister that attainment advisers will indeed be placed in every local authority; further recognises that more must be done to address the attainment gap; welcomes proposals by Scottish Labour to tackle this with a further £25 million per year programme of investment, totalling £125 million over a five-year parliamentary session, including doubling the number of teaching assistants and 10 new literacy teachers in each of the associated primary schools of the 20 high schools facing the greatest challenges, in addition to the Scottish Government’s plans and paid for through a 50p top rate of tax; calls on the Office of the Chief Economic Adviser in the Scottish Government to undertake a distributional impact assessment of the attainment gap in Scotland’s schools, and believes that education is both key to addressing the scandal of inequality in Scottish society and a crucial investment in the future of Scotland’s economy.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I very much welcome the opportunity to debate in tandem education, our economy and how we are to tackle inequality, because they are all inextricably linked. This Government has done more than any previous Administration in the United Kingdom to promote the living wage. It is clear to me that all of us share a commitment to tackling inequality and the at times devastating impact that it can have on our society and our economy. It is important to remember that, rather than an abstract concept, we are talking about real lives and our children’s future. I hope that, if we put our children’s interests and needs at the heart of our debate, we can find some agreement and more ways of generating light rather than heat on such a vital issue.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Not just yet.

I will address the errors in Labour’s assertion about young people’s achievements in examinations in recent years. At First Minister’s question time last Thursday, Ms Dugdale claimed that recent research showed

“102,000 fewer candidates getting the grades that they need to get on in life.”—[Official Report, 14 May 2015; c 10.]

That is simply not the case, given that there are only ever around 150,000 candidates presenting for qualifications in any year. Labour appears to have confused the number of candidates with the number of entries for examination, yet everyone knows that most candidates are presented for several qualifications.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

In a moment.

The Scottish Qualifications Authority’s data shows that, as expected, the total number of entries and passes at levels 3 to 5 dropped last year, not because of failure but because of success. Our young people, supported by teachers and education authorities, have successfully transferred to the new system in line with changed curriculum models, whereby they take fewer qualifications in secondary 4. That is well known and it does not reflect the performance in exams of our young people or the performance of the system.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I think that the cabinet secretary is correct in her assessment of the number of presentations. Is that in itself one of the key issues, in that there are fewer presentations because of the change to the exam system, which has knock-on effects on highers and advanced highers? Parents are concerned that their children will end up with fewer qualifications, even though the existing ones might be quite well taken.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Ms Smith fails to understand that the overall purpose of the curricular reforms is to maximise the performance of children by the time they leave school. The reasons for the changes are indeed related to the curriculum.

I wonder at times whether Conservative and Labour members remain absolute in their commitment to supporting curriculum for excellence. I thought that we all understood that, in the new arrangements, pupils do an extra year of what we call a broad general education. In curriculum for excellence, children maintain a full range of subjects through S3. Only then do they begin to drop subjects, and they typically focus on a smaller number of formal qualifications in the course of S4. They then go into S5 able to focus in-depth on the subjects that they have continued to study.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I do not accept some of the cabinet secretary’s analysis, and I will address some of that in my closing speech. However, on that particular point, I note that pupils will be able to proceed to a higher level in the fewer subjects that they have studied only if they pass in them. The same SQA statistics as the cabinet secretary quoted show that the pass rate for levels 3 to 5 dropped from 92 to 83 per cent and that at level 5—or what was credit level—it dropped to below 80 per cent and was 79 per cent. Attainment levels have fallen.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Of course, more people took highers, but Mr Gray has failed to realise that the new qualifications mark a shift to deeper learning and more analysis, engagement and understanding. As I have said, pupils generally study a wider range of subjects at S3 and focus on a smaller number of qualifications at S4 on their way to studying highers.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

No, thanks.

We know that there is still a small percentage of young people who leave school at the end of S4. Under curriculum for excellence, they will do so with a firm foundation. The percentage of young people who leave school with no qualifications has reduced drastically in recent years—further and faster than under Labour—and the figure now stands at 1.5 per cent. It is really sad that the Labour Party has chosen to misrepresent Dr Scott’s painstaking collection of data. As people read the Official Report, they will be able to see that the facts stand for themselves.

We have a record to be proud of—I will say more about that in my closing speech—but we absolutely do not demur from the fact that much more needs to be done. Nevertheless, it is a pity that those in other parties do not recognise the useful comparisons that can be made between the level 6 qualifications—that mainly means highers—taken in 2012-13 and those taken in 2013-14. The total number of entries for those qualifications has increased from more than 182,000 to more than 191,000 and—vitally—the number of qualifications that have been gained has increased from more than 144,000 to more than 148,000. That is a record number.

I am totally committed to curriculum for excellence, its principles and its approach to learning. It will deliver the skills, knowledge and experience that we want for all our children and young people.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

No, thanks.

Curriculum for excellence is a success story that is still being written. The OECD’s review of our education system in 2007 praised our vision in that respect, and its next review, which begins next month, will focus on implementation and the broad general education and will provide us with valuable independent evidence that draws on other countries’ experience.

As Ms Baillie mentioned, last night I set out my priorities, my values and my aspirations for Scotland’s education system. I want Scotland to have a fair education system that provides excellence to all children, irrespective of their background or circumstances. I want an education system that does not settle for good enough but which aims high and gives children the skills that they need to thrive rather than simply to survive.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

No, thanks.

I want Scotland to have an education system that is focused on attainment and achievement and which is built around delivering equity and excellence and—crucially—aspiration and ambition.

There are promising signs that we are on track to deliver excellence. Programme for international student assessment—PISA—data for 2012 shows that Scotland performed at above the OECD average for reading and science and outperformed a greater number of competitor countries than in 2009. The PISA data also showed that we narrowed the gap between the most and least disadvantaged pupils. We were the only UK country to do so.

However, I make it clear that the Scottish survey of literacy and numeracy results on numeracy in 2014 and this year’s results on literacy certainly show that we need to step up the pace of change. That is why the Government has made closing the attainment gap so that every child in every community gets every chance to succeed at school and in life a key focus of our programme for government. We are investing £100 million through a national attainment fund over four years, targeting support at local authorities with the most deprived communities and providing schools with greater access to expertise and resources through the Scottish attainment challenge. Attainment advisers for every local authority area are being recruited, and the raising attainment for all programme now has 23 local authorities and 180 schools committed to improving literacy, numeracy, and health and wellbeing.

New duties under the Education (Scotland) Bill to ensure that councils and ministers attach priority to the on-going challenge of inequalities of outcome will underpin that work. I trust that we can rely on Labour members for their support at all stages of that bill.

I will finish by offering members reassurance. They should not doubt my and the Government’s passion and sense of urgency for addressing the issue. We know that we have more to do and that we have to do it now. Every school and every education authority needs to take action. We will not rest until we see clear evidence that educational outcomes are improving for every child in Scotland.

The spirit of consensus that has underpinned curriculum for excellence needs to be maintained and applied to the wider effort. We need to keep clear in our minds our key priorities to ensure that every child in Scotland is on a personal journey to excellence.

I move amendment S4M-13203.3, to leave out from first “believes” to end and insert:

“agrees that reducing inequality, including the attainment gap, is not only important in itself, but is vital to create the conditions to deliver sustainable economic growth over the long term; welcomes the successful implementation of the curriculum for excellence (CfE); notes that, under CfE, pupils generally study a wider range of subjects in S3 than previously, before focussing on a smaller number of subjects for formal qualifications in S4; recognises that this approach is designed to ensure that pupils maximise their achievement by the time they leave school and commands the support of teachers, educationalists and the Parliament; condemns attempts to portray this change in the pattern of exams taken as a reduction in attainment; welcomes the reduction in the attainment gap noted by the OECD’s Pisa study; agrees that more needs to be done to raise attainment and close the attainment gap; supports the recent launch of the Scottish Attainment Challenge, backed by the £100 million Attainment Scotland Fund, the ongoing work with the Raising Attainment for All programme and the Access to Education Fund and specific work on literacy and numeracy, and calls on all parties to reaffirm their support for CfE.”

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

We, too, welcome this Labour Party debate on Scotland’s economy, specifically on the essential skills, training, qualifications and basic education that are required to ensure that people from all backgrounds and of all ages in Scotland benefit from the opportunities to work and start a business.

I am pleased to note that the Scottish Government now admits, after eight years in office, the drop in performance in both reading and writing. That is a good starting point for the debate. I am also pleased to hear that, after eight years, that has now become an urgent issue.

I would like to quote from emails that I have received from parents and teachers on the reduction in subjects and their concern about limiting choices in highers and putting pupils in Scotland at a disadvantage.

First, I will quote from an email from a parent in Edinburgh, who said:

“We were told that the new curriculum for excellence would result in all schools going from 8 standard grade equivalents to 6. Advised that this was the new way for all and that children would be given more time to devote to subjects and this should improve grades”.

She then discovered that that diktat was referred to as a consultation. When she spoke to other parents in Edinburgh, she discovered that pupils at Boroughmuir high school, the Royal high school, James Gillespie’s high school and others were still doing eight standard grade equivalents, not six.

A teacher in Edinburgh had bright students who wanted to do chemistry and physics in S4, but they could not because of their other choices from the very restricted menu that was on offer. They could do only one science along with physical education or retail. There is nothing wrong with PE and retail—I have spoken out on retail opportunities many times in the Parliament—but try getting into medical school with highers in PE and retail rather than science. That is very difficult to do.

One pupil responded by saying:

“You make us do subjects we don’t want to do for an extra year, and then you don’t let us choose the subjects we do want to do”.

Next year, the same school and the same teacher will run a composite national 4, national 5 and higher class bringing together physics, biology and craft, design and technology into one course. How often has the importance of science-based subjects and understanding been stated in the Parliament?

I now come to the painstaking data from Dr Jim Scott. Another area of concern is the drastic reduction in attainment totals for Scottish credit and qualifications framework levels 3 to 5. The fall in attainment at level 3 is 58 per cent between the year before last and last year. In level 4, there is a 23 per cent fall in attainment and, in level 5, there is a 10 per cent fall. That leads to an overall average of a 20 per cent reduction in attainment last year in comparison with 2012-13. That is based on Dr Jim Scott’s research and I am happy to hand it over to the cabinet secretary.

As if that was not bad enough, we must ask why, given the Scottish Government’s opportunities for all guarantee of a place in education or training—I read the 2011 manifesto before I came to the chamber—29,000 16 to 19-year-olds are not in education, employment or training.

When it looks at schools, the Government must ask what happens between P7, when 66 per cent of pupils perform well or very well in numeracy, and S2, when only 42 per cent of pupils perform well or very well. What happens in two years at secondary school that leads to a drop in numeracy standards of 24 percentage points?

We also learn from Audit Scotland that there is no consistent approach to tracking and monitoring pupils’ progress from P1 to S3. Although some councils test at P1, P3, P5, P7 and S2, others do not. Last night, the cabinet secretary said that assessment tools and systems were already in place at school, local and national level. If so, why are they not being used and why do they need to be simplified before they are implemented?

Yesterday, the Education and Culture Committee heard evidence from East Renfrewshire Council. It holds comprehensive data on the attainment of all children through the analysis of baseline, standardised tests at P3, P5, P7 and S2, as well as SQA results. If East Renfrewshire schools can collect that information through testing to inform them about a child’s development and support needs, why can it not be done in the rest of Scotland? Unfortunately, East Renfrewshire Council cannot compare its data with those of any other schools because the tests are that council’s and its alone.

We have welcomed the attainment advisers and the £100 million investment over four years, but I was a bit surprised to read in Scotland on Sunday that those posts are secondments for 12 months or 23 months, not four years. Perhaps I will pass the job advertisement to Stewart Stevenson, because there is no salary on it so we do not even know how much they will be paid. I presume that it will be what they are already paid.

Unless we know who needs support to assist their attainment, unless we have accurate data and unless there is an evaluation, we will not know where the £100 million will go.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I regret that you must draw to a close.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I can see that my time is almost up.

A 150,000 cut in part-time college places does not help attainment one bit, nor do the cuts to provision for over-25s, whose lives can be transformed by college. I know that. I was a part-time student when I was over 25 and a single parent with two children. I had all those opportunities before I went to university but that door is well and truly closed for the future. That is much to be regretted and I lay the blame entirely at the door of the Government.

I move amendment S4M-13203.1, to leave out from “welcomes clarification” to end and insert:

“, and is concerned about the high percentage of secondary schools that have reduced the number of certificate subjects available in S4, which, in turn, has reduced the total number of presentations, including in English and Maths, and which, by definition, means that there are fewer pupils who are properly schooled in the literacy and numeracy skills required in the world of work.”

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Throughout the United Kingdom, unemployment has fallen and hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created. Wages are outstripping inflation and growth rates in the United Kingdom are vying with those in the United States of America. That is combined with big tax cuts for people on low and middle incomes.

Let us contrast that with what the recent set of statistics shows is happening in Scotland, where the unemployment level has risen. In particular, 5,000 women have left employment. That contrasts badly with the rest of the United Kingdom and, in that context, the debate is timely.

We need the Scottish Government to examine every aspect of its policy to get Scotland back on the path of falling unemployment to ensure a prosperous economy and futures that allow individuals to fulfil their potential.

I was quite disappointed with the minister’s amendment and with her tone today. The Government must begin to acknowledge its weaknesses and its failings in order for us to make real progress. In the interventions from her own back benchers, the only answer that they had to the problem was more powers for this Parliament. They have no other ideas about education at all—only more powers. It is a stuck record, and they need to reflect on their eight years in power and eight years of failure.

I welcome the Scottish attainment challenge and the funding through the attainment Scotland fund, but the Government has had eight years in which to tackle inequality of attainment and has failed to do so. The minister cannot now, with a great flourish of rhetoric, claim a new start. Children who started school in 2007 are now well established at secondary school. They do not get a second chance. The class of 2007 has witnessed this Government’s failure to deliver its promises to reduce class sizes in primary 1 to 3, its failure to improve teacher pupil ratios and its failure to improve standards in maths, science and literacy.

Let us look at some of the details. The number of teachers has fallen by 4,275 since 2007. The average P1 to P3 class now stands at 23 pupils—far from the 18 that we were promised back in 2007. The PISA maths scores fell in 2009 and 2012. The results of the 2014 Scottish survey of literacy and numeracy, which was published recently, show that performance in reading dropped in primary schools between 2012 and 2014, as well as in the second year of secondary school.

The minister must reflect seriously on that record. Rather than claiming that it is a new start, she needs to take responsibility for the full eight years during which her Government has been in charge.

It is perhaps no surprise that the Liberal Democrat amendment has focused on the early years and on the importance of that crucial period for an individual’s life chances. There is an ever-growing body of evidence about how the quality of early years provision can support a child’s brain development and make a positive difference to their life chances and their future participation in our society. Effective early years education offers the foundations for healthy, all-round development. Studies such as “The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Final Report” provide strong evidence for the impact of high-quality childcare and highly qualified staff on children’s outcomes.

We know from that work that better-qualified staff teams offered higher-quality support for children developing their communication, language and literacy skills and their reasoning, thinking and maths skills. That is why we want more of Scotland’s children to benefit from free nursery education. With provision in England outstripping that in Scotland, we cannot say that we are giving Scotland’s children the start that they deserve. That is a concern not only for the individuals but for our future economy. We are asking our young people to play catch-up from the age of two in what is already a hugely competitive global economy.

Let me be clear. I am not doubting—and there is no doubting—the talents and potential of young people across Scotland, but we must do more and we need to do more to unlock that talent to ensure that every individual has the opportunity to fulfil their potential. That process of unlocking potential starts from a very early age.

The Government must also look at its record of helping disadvantaged pupils and at the continued attainment gap. There is evidence that the pupil premium that was introduced by the previous UK Government has had a positive impact in meeting its aims. An Office for Standards in Education report highlighted how the funding was used by one school to support a pupil who became temporarily looked after in year 11, following a family trauma, as her work began to suffer. The school bought in counselling and other emotional support, as well as an individualised programme of additional teaching, including daily maths tuition, extra English lessons and support in PE. It is that kind of individualised help and support that the pupil premium has allowed and which can truly turn around a young person’s life. I hope that serious consideration will be given to a similar funding approach in Scotland.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Will the member give way?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.

Nearly two centuries ago, an American politician, Horace Mann, said:

“Education, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equaliser of the conditions of men—the balance-wheel of the social machinery.”

Education is an enduring legacy of opportunity, and the Government needs to step up to the mark.

I move amendment S4M-13203.2, to leave out from “welcomes proposals” to end and insert:

“recognises research that shows that investment in the first three years of a child’s life is the most influential in changing an individual’s life chances; believes that quality early years education is crucial to closing the attainment gap; further believes that targeted funding for school-aged pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds should be explored in Scotland as a means to give disadvantaged pupils a better chance of reaching their potential; considers that education is the best means to create a strong economy with sustainable jobs, and is concerned that the unemployment level in Scotland is bucking the trend seen across the UK by increasing in the last quarter.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We now move to the open debate. We are extremely tight for time today.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

First, I would like to consider the motion that has been lodged by the Labour Party. It talks about concerns about a new analysis that has been published by Dr Jim Scott. In trying to get that analysis from the Scottish Parliament information centre, I managed to obtain a sheet with one black-and-white table. That is not analysis in my book. Today, it was replaced by a sheet placed by the Labour Party on the table at the back of the chamber with the same table on it—the only difference being that it is now in colour. If we are going to debate Dr Scott’s analysis, it would be wise to ensure that we could all catch sight of that analysis. We have been told that the analysis was conducted for the Labour Party. None of us has seen it—it is not easy to come by.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I want to correct a couple of factual errors by the member. First, the analysis was not undertaken for the Labour Party; it was undertaken by Dr Scott in his capacity as a research fellow. The data—

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I have heard enough, Mr Gray.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The data—

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Enough!

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Stewart, sit down and let Mr Gray finish.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The data is Scottish Qualifications Authority data that has been publicly available since last December.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

What I would say, then, is—

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

—why is that analysis available to some and not others?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Stewart, sit down.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

Presiding Officer, can you clarify that the rules of this Parliament are that, when you call a member to speak, it is you who determines when that person finishes, and that they should not be shouted down by another speaker?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I thank the member for his point of order. The point that he raises is correct. However, we will now proceed with the debate.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

That analysis is not publicly available. We have not been able to catch sight of it, which I would argue makes it difficult to debate.

I will move on. Other parts of the motion talk about introducing a 50p tax rate to pay for a number of things. I stand to be corrected but, at this moment in time, this Parliament does not have the power to raise the top rate of tax to 50p. I wish that it did, but that is one of the many powers that we still do not have.

Beyond that, in answer to a question from my colleague Stewart Stevenson, Jackie Baillie said that she reckons that it would cost £20,000 a year to employ a teaching assistant and that she thinks—“think” is the word that she used—that it would cost £30,000 a year for a literacy teacher. I am quite sure that that does not include the whole cost of employing the folk who are mentioned in the motion.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Will the member give way?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

No. I have heard enough from Mr Gray.

Once again, we have a flaw in a Labour Party motion. It is little wonder that the last Labour Government got itself into financial difficulties, given that the party cannot calculate these things properly but there we go—no surprise there.

I was shouted down earlier for mentioning welfare reform and its effect on people throughout this country. On numerous occasions when I have been out and about, I have talked to teachers and others who say that we have a massive gap in attainment that must be bridged. However, we will not be able to do so while kids are still going to school with empty bellies, because kids with empty bellies cannot learn. One of our major problems is the fact that welfare reform is having a major impact on people right across this country. Of course, the Labour Party could have helped to deal with some of the empty belly problems by voting for free school meals when that issue was raised in this Parliament, but it voted against them. How progressive is that?

Among the key things that we need to do to tackle inequality, bridge that attainment gap and create a fairer society is create a much better social security system and ensure that folks who are in work are being paid properly so that they can afford the things that they need in their daily lives.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Will the member give way?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member is in his last 30 seconds.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Unfortunately, that is one of the things that the Labour Party and others in this place will not talk about. They will not talk about it because they do not want this Parliament to have those powers. I am quite sure that we would do a much better job than the current Tory Government and previous Westminster Governments, which have failed on this issue.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Two central economic facts underline Labour’s motion. First, education—especially quality education—is crucial for economic growth; and, secondly, inequality undermines economic growth. That is an orthodoxy now, as it is accepted by the OECD and the IMF as well as by notable individual economists.

Those two facts explain why the attainment gap is not just important—and, indeed, catastrophic for the lives of many people in Scotland today—but harming our economy twice over: first, by reducing the number of people who have the level of education and skills needed to advance in the employment market; and, secondly, by exacerbating the inequality that hinders growth.

Jackie Baillie quoted Joseph Stiglitz on the subject of the relationship between education and inequality. Anyone who doubts that analysis should look at a very short OECD video that I watched this morning. It is less than five minutes long, but it absolutely brilliantly encapsulates that central insight about inequality undermining economic growth.

The video also advocates something else that is quite interesting. I think that we all accept that the OECD is not some kind of Marxist front, but it argues in the video and in other writings that tax increases for the wealthiest are necessary to strengthen the economy, which is contrary to the neo-liberal orthodoxy that we often hear about. Also, of course, those increases are crucial for providing the educational and other opportunities for those who are most disadvantaged in our society. That is exactly what we propose in our motion.

Kevin Stewart is right to say that we have not quite got the ability to do that in terms of tax powers, but there is no doubt that we will have it soon. That is why a central proposal in Labour’s recent election manifesto was that we should use the money from the top rate of tax to employ teaching assistants and literacy teachers, focusing on the most disadvantaged schools. There was also the commitment, which Jackie Baillie reiterated, to support the lowest performing 20 per cent of pupils in literacy and numeracy wherever they happen to live.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Mr Chisholm may have more knowledge than I do. Does he have any idea when this Parliament is likely to get those tax-raising powers? At this moment in time, I have no clue about when we are likely to get them—if we get them.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I am very confident that those powers will be coming soon.

As members know, I am not one to bash the Scottish Government at every opportunity, but it and SNP back benchers must face some uncomfortable facts in this debate. I do not think that they can argue with the Scottish survey of literacy and numeracy, which has been much referred to. I think that in the speech that she gave last night, the cabinet secretary accepted that there are alarming declines in the levels of numeracy and literacy in Scotland, and those have to be addressed collectively by us all.

Mary Scanlon made the interesting point that there is a particular decline between primary 7 and secondary 2, and we should perhaps focus on that. I support the curriculum for excellence, but there may have been a loss of focus on literacy and numeracy in the first two years of secondary school.

The cabinet secretary expressed surprise last night at some of the approaches to literacy and numeracy in S1 and S2. I was surprised as well: when I started teaching in the 1970s, language across the curriculum was a central mantra, as well as being the title of a very important textbook. There may be lessons to be learned in that regard, but the points that Jackie Baillie made about the wider issues of teacher numbers and class sizes are equally important.

We have heard a lot about Dr Scott, whose table is interesting. Kevin Stewart spent the first half of his speech saying that there is not enough information in it. I am sure that we would all like more information, but there is some pretty important information in the table, which is in two parts.

On the number of exams that students take in S4, I hear what the cabinet secretary says, but I still have concerns about that, particularly with regard to STEM—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—subjects, which we all accept are so important for the economy. The issue may well be difficult to address, but the same point came up in the science in schools debate earlier this year. If the number of science subjects that are being taken is declining because people cannot do physics and chemistry or whatever, we must at least ask questions about that.

There is also the uncomfortable fact of attainment levels. Iain Gray quoted the most striking part of the table in that regard: of those enrolled, 92 per cent passed in 2012-13 and 79 per cent passed in 2013-14. I acknowledge that that is just two years, but we have to take those figures seriously and express a degree of concern about them.

We also need to focus on STEM subjects in colleges. We keep bandying about the figures on colleges, and the Labour Party’s concerns about them are well known, but I highlight the figures with regard to STEM subjects and the effect on the economy. There were 86,000 places in STEM subjects in colleges eight years ago, while in the last year for which we have figures, there were 56,000. Again, that gives us some cause for concern.

I heard what the cabinet secretary, Roseanna Cunningham, said at question time about more colleges courses leading to employment, but that does not seem to sit comfortably with the decline in STEM subjects. [Interruption.]

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Order, please. The member is finishing, so no one will intervene.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I am exactly on six minutes, so I do not have time to say what I wanted to say about early years. I will just note that I agree that, in spite of all our talk about schools and colleges, the most important investment for all sorts of things, including economic growth, is probably investment in the early years.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Clare Adamson, to be followed by Graeme Pearson. We are tight for time.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

At the start of the debate—indeed, for possibly the first four minutes of Jackie Baillie’s speech—I thought that we were going to get some consensus on the devastating effect of inequality and the challenges ahead, and come together on how we could address the situation. I am a bit sorry that the debate has taken a different direction.

The first issue that I want to raise concerns the research by Dr Scott to which members have referred. I have in front of me an email that I received from SPICe yesterday. It says:

“The research was carried out for the Labour Party and the full document is not publicly available or published online. The party have today”

—that is, yesterday—

“provided the below table to SPICe which summarises the findings of Dr ... Scott and which can be shared by SPICe with enquirers.”

I am unclear about who produced the summary: that is, whether it is Dr Scott’s analysis or the Labour Party’s.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I can answer that question: the table is from Dr Scott’s research. I can also say to Clare Adamson in all sincerity that SPICe is wrong: we did not tell it that the research was done for us. I can only assume that SPICe has made a mistake.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I hope that Iain Gray will appreciate that that is what has led to some confusion among members on the SNP side of the chamber with regard to the report.

In looking at the table in front of me, I am concerned that there does not seem to be any weighting for falling school rolls between the two years in question. I agree with the cabinet secretary that, when the raw data is taken out of the context that was provided in evidence to the Education and Culture Committee—that the number of subjects being studied by pupils this year was going to fall because that was the intention of curriculum for excellence—there is some confusion.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Although we might accept that the overall number of people taking the exams has fallen—I do not necessarily accept that, but let us put that to one side—how can the member explain the percentage drop in attainment? That is not about the respective numbers; it is about an overall fall in attainment, no matter who is sitting the exams.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We have to look at the issue in context. We are talking about the second year of the new fifth year exams, and we do not have all the information in front of us or the full details of the research, which is why it is difficult for us to comment on it. However, I do not think that the Government or anyone else will say that a fall in attainment is likely. As the cabinet secretary has set out, higher levels are showing a continued increase and, year on year, we are doing better in the area. As we are having this debate, I just had to raise those issues.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member take an intervention?

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No—I have taken enough interventions. Sorry.

In today’s press, Jamie Livingstone, the head of Oxfam Scotland, talked about research that Oxfam carried out that showed that

“in the UK, just five families had roughly the same wealth as the least well off 12 million people in Britain put together.”

Mr Livingstone says that, although Oxfam is non-political, it takes

“a clear and unequivocal stand against such glaring inequality—an issue we believe is inextricably linked to poverty.”

Oxfam says that tackling poverty and inequality must include

“action to ensure that we have a just tax system in which everyone pays their fair share—each according to their means.”

There is a degree of consensus that the tax system needs to change to achieve that. It is just unfortunate that we do not have the power to do that in the Scottish Parliament at this time.

The article also states:

“Latest figures suggest 820,000 people live in poverty in Scotland. More than half of working age adults in poverty live in households where at least one person is working; the old adage that work is the clearest route out of poverty rings hollow.”

That is no longer relevant to the situation that we find with in-work poverty today.

The Welfare Reform Committee has frequently taken evidence on increased food bank use and the effects of the sanctions system on families who rely on social security. We have seen that poverty is increasing as a result of the Westminster Government’s austerity agenda. Mary Scanlon spoke passionately about the numbers, but she forgets that in those figures are children who are suffering under her Government’s austerity regime.

With regard to the further cuts that are coming our way, Westminster’s Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has stated:

“We would have to have done the work on it.”

He continued:

“as soon as we’ve done the work and had it modelled we’ll let everybody know what that is.”

We have £12 billion of cuts coming, but there is no cognisance of what the welfare budget needs to be and no reason for the cuts other than the austerity ideology. No regard is paid to the devastating impact on families who rely on social security or to equality impact assessments. There is no sense of fairness or need in the UK Government’s agenda.

The science and engineering education advisory group report on STEM subjects highlighted that

“even relatively small improvements in educational standards can have large impacts on the economic, social and cultural well-being of nations that may offset and perhaps exceed the cost of effective educational reform.”

I believe that the Government, working with partners such as SEEAG, is moving towards that position. I know that that is happening because, on 26 and 27 March, I attended the learning festival in North Lanarkshire, which was opened by Dr Alasdair Allan. The festival looked at creative learning and giving teachers opportunities to learn more about what exists to help them to meet the challenges that they face in tackling the attainment gap.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

I rise to support Jackie Baillie’s motion and to contribute to the debate. One can understand why the Government wants to focus on all the plus points in our education system, and there is no doubt that we are gifted with the professionalism of our teachers, and those who support them in education day and daily, in dealing with the pupils and students in our schools. However, as Willie Rennie touched on, we need to look at the reality of what happens in our schools and what has happened every day during the eight years of the SNP Government. It is about pupils. It is about one chance in life—a chance that is given to them by education to move out of deprivation and poverty.

The cabinet secretary was right to acknowledge last night her concerns about literacy. I add to that concerns about numeracy. She made comments alluding to some teachers’ impacts and their understanding of the challenge. Those observations have been picked up by some people as a criticism of the profession. Therein lies the heat at the centre of our debate. Too often we are diverted from the key issues that we are trying to understand.

Education is particularly important not only to our economy and for what it adds to our ability to participate and compete in this world. It is also of particular significance to people who come from poor areas—those who face deprivation of opportunity. For those who live in such areas, education provides one of the only chances to escape poverty.

This week in the Daily Record, Joanne Martin from Possilpark reported that she had succeeded in achieving grades that should have allowed her to pursue a career in medicine, only to find that she was being frustrated in taking her chosen career path, in her belief, because of the social stratum that she comes from and the family support that she received—great support from her mum, who is a part-time cleaner. Her view was supported by Vonnie Sandlan, the president-elect of the National Union of Students Scotland. When we look at the position, we discover the fact that in the most deprived 10 per cent of areas in Scotland fewer than one person in three leaves school with at least one higher, while four out of every five pupils in the most affluent parts of Scotland leave with at least one higher. With a Government that seems to be committed to social justice and equality, those statistics are difficult to face.

Dr Jim Scott of the University of Edinburgh has shown that the number of candidates who are gaining level 3 to 5 Scottish credit and qualifications framework qualifications—the replacement for standard grades—has dropped by 20 per cent. That is a challenge to any Government that seeks to deliver equality of opportunity.

Standards of literacy and numeracy in Scotland’s schools have fallen.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I want to be clear that the number of people who are achieving qualifications at levels 3 to 5 did not fall by 20 per cent. It fell by about 6 per cent. The mistake that Labour keeps making is that its members talk about people—as in candidates—as opposed to the number of qualifications. You cannot compare apples with pears. Typically, there were two entries for standard grades at general and credit level, whereas with level 3—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Cabinet secretary, we have to hurry along.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

I hear what the cabinet secretary says. It is one thing to bemuse us with statistics, but the reality is out there to be faced, and it is reported every day in our schools.

College admissions have fallen by 37 per cent, or some 140,000 places, since the SNP came to power. That pathway for leaving deprivation and poverty is becoming choked off by the decisions that are being taken by this Government, in this country, under the powers that are available to it now. At the same time it is spending £7.599 billion from the budget to deliver for our children. If the SNP Government is truly committed to delivering in this respect, it should pay attention to Dr Jim Scott’s opinions on the matter. He is a respected academic who reported to committee earlier this year, and—

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Will the member take an intervention?

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

I will finish the sentence. When I spoke to Dr Scott at a committee meeting, he informed me that his report was submitted to Government officials earlier this year and that he supported the contents of that report. It was interesting to me particularly because of the meeting that I attended. On that occasion the cabinet secretary—not the present one—reported on the successes that had been achieved in modern language teaching in Scottish schools. Dr Scott reported exactly the opposite from a statistic that he had gathered for his report.

I beg the cabinet secretary to connect with reality to give us the opportunity to see improvements in the access to education that is offered to people in deprived areas and those who live in poor circumstances.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I am happy to welcome this debate on education, as it appears in the motion, although I have to say that the title, “The Future of Scotland’s Economy” is somewhat misleading. The link between education and the economy is very strong, but it would have been helpful if the Labour Party had said that in the title of the motion. However, I accept that Labour has been in something of a muddle recently.

One of the SNP’s flagship policies has been free university education. It is fascinating that universities are not mentioned in Labour’s motion. Does Labour look down on academic achievement and the universities? Does Labour want to move resources from universities to schools and colleges? Labour is perfectly entitled to call for that if it wants, but to call for more emphasis on one area without stating that there should be less emphasis on another strikes me as being less than transparent.

We would all like more money to be available for colleges, as for other areas. However, I would not want to return to the previous arrangements, which became purely a numbers game, with students, including some with learning disabilities, being parked on courses that were of no use to them.

As well as how much money colleges get, there is also a question about how they are run. The situation in Glasgow has been of concern to me for some time, with the apparent turmoil both at Glasgow Clyde College—with the change of principal—and at the overall Glasgow Colleges Regional Board. One of the key ways to reduce inequality in Scottish society is to have strong and effective colleges. The six community-based colleges in Glasgow, which have now been merged into two—Glasgow Kelvin College and Glasgow Clyde College—have had a fair degree of success in that respect. Can the cabinet secretary give us any reassurance in relation to both Glasgow Clyde College and the Glasgow Colleges Regional Board that that money will not be wasted on expensive bureaucracy and duplication, but will be channelled into front-line education and that the regional board will be able to handle that?

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Does John Mason believe that more people are moving into further education and that there are now more staff in further education than there were prior to his Government’s reforms?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I believe—because the Scottish Parliament’s budget has been cut—that virtually all spending, apart from on the national health service, has had to be reduced. That is the reality.

This week is Scottish apprenticeships week. I was out in Baillieston with some Glasgow Housing Association modern apprentices on Monday, which reminded me again that we need to find the right role and employment for each and every individual.

In the past there has been too much emphasis on academic results in schools. We have seen some improvement, in that we have been moving away from that, in recent years. There is still, however, overemphasis on exam results—which are relatively easy to measure—compared to the emphasis on the value that is added by a school, which is much harder to measure.

I agree with the Labour motion when it mentions the STEM—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—subjects. That focus is needed especially for girls and women, as we found at the Equal Opportunities Committee when we carried out our inquiry into women and work. There is still a tendency for men and women to take traditional career paths. It is not just money that is needed to change that. However, there is very little detail from Labour about what can or should be done to get more people into STEM.

There is a strong emphasis on STEM in the Government and Parliament, but we are not seeing that being worked out in practice at the grass roots. When I had a school visit from one of my local secondaries recently, none of the pupils—boys or girls—was considering engineering. Why was that? Are schools pressing too much for arts and academic subjects, rather than for more practical and technical subjects? Do we need schools to emphasise more to pupils where future jobs are likely to be? How do we change attitudes in society so that engineering is valued more highly? How do we help young people who lack self-confidence and vision, perhaps because no one in their family has been at college or university before? Although I accept that school resources are a key element, those kinds of questions are not just about money.

While we are on attitudes, the attitude to self-employment is another challenge. Many of us did not, when we were at school, seriously consider setting up our own business but assumed that academic achievement and being employed was the way ahead. However, some of our most successful business people do not have fabulous academic records. Some gained qualifications later in life, but some did not. The link between the economy and education that has been made in today’s debate is important, but it is not the be all and end all. I am reminded again that we need to find the best outcome for each individual young person and not to take the too-simplistic approach of counting what is easily measured.

With my finance hat on, I believe that we have to live within our means. At the moment that means, largely, the block grant. Cuts from Westminster, as I have said, have led to cuts in most areas of the Scottish budget, which is hardly a shock to anyone here. I am very open to the idea of a 50p higher rate of income tax, and ideally we should combine that with national insurance. However, even with a 50p income tax rate, the 2p national insurance rate makes the combined rate of 52p less progressive. I would like us to look at a combined rate of perhaps 60p.

However, as my colleague Kevin Stewart asked, when is the 50p rate to be available? Will it be when this Parliament gets powers on income tax or will it be when Labour gets into power at Westminster? Either way, it seems that we will wait for quite a long time. We have estimated that we would get from a 50p rate of tax an extra £13 million; I am not sure that that would quite achieve what Labour’s motion hopes for.

The economy and education are two very important topics, and the challenges that face us in both areas are slightly more complex than Labour seems to suggest.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Jackie Baillie spent a large part of the first section of her speech talking about areas of economic policy that do not appear in the Labour Party’s motion, then got into the substance of what the Labour Party wants to debate. Mr Mason is quite right that the information that SPICe provided suggests that £13 million is what would be achieved by a 50p top rate of income tax in Scotland, which is not the £25 million that Labour says it would use from a 50p top rate. Beyond that, there is also a question whether, with regard to the numbers of employed staff to which the motion refers, the numbers would add up—either in respect of the £13 million or of the £25 million—if on-costs are included.

The central point of the debate is inequality and how best to tackle it. I do not dispute the notion that education is a means by which people can escape the trapping effect of inequality. That is well understood. However, that is about individuals doing something in spite of their circumstances, rather than about the circumstances being materially changed in order to improve the individual’s outcomes. If Labour is saying that we need to focus our efforts on particular areas in order to work against the external factors that affect children’s educational outcomes, I agree that we should do that. Based on current evidence, the cabinet secretary has also said that she wishes to do that. However, we have also to look at how we can address the external factors that impact on particular children, families and communities. We want such children to have the best possible educational outcomes, but we also want to ensure that the lifestyles around them are materially improved.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Perhaps I will, a little bit later. I want to develop my point further.

It cannot simply be the case that working to help children to escape the situations in which they find themselves as a result of the inequalities that exist in society will resolve those inequalities, because adults, family networks and communities are affected by deep inequalities that will not be resolved by working through the education system alone. The issue goes wider than that.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I take Mark McDonald’s point on the wider issues about poverty, but does he not agree that by focusing resources on education we will start to break people out of the vicious cycle of poverty and that education is in itself a way to tackle poverty, not overnight but on a generational basis?

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

There is no disagreement from me on that. I think that I made that point earlier in my speech.

I represent a constituency that has poverty amidst plenty. My constituency office is based in one of the most deprived communities in the city of Aberdeen, but in my constituency I also have communities that have child poverty rates of less than 5 per cent, so I recognise the need to ensure that resources are focused on the areas that need intervention.

That brings me to the other aspect of the inequality agenda, which is about the economy, employment and creating circumstances in which individuals in deprived communities can access well-paid and sustainable employment. That is what led me to my intervention on Jackie Baillie. I am not one of the folk who see more powers as being the answer to everything, but we must look at where the powers rest that can best tackle the societal inequalities that deprived communities face.

I absolutely agree—and I have already said—that we need to focus on education, and the cabinet secretary made that point very clearly, but beyond that we have to look at how we affect individuals’ material circumstances. How do we make people’s incomes and employment better? One way in which we do that is through wages policy and employment policy. It is through being able to take measures to tackle things such as exploitative zero-hours contracts, and being able to take steps to address the minimum wage policy in a wider context than simply looking at the living wage, which is narrowly confined to the public sector because that is the only place where we can implement it, at present. Until we are able to take that basket of measures forward as well, we will be hamstrung in some of our efforts.

Teachers are doing a fantastic job in our communities, especially in our deprived communities, but when a child arrives at the school gate with an empty belly because their family has to rely on food banks, or when they are affected by circumstances outside the classroom, the school will only ever be working in a situation where it is battling against external factors and it will be unable to develop the child’s full potential. I absolutely agree that we should focus on education, but we must have a wider focus than simply on education. Otherwise, schools will continue to battle against external factors and will not be able to work to achieve the best possible outcomes for children.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

We all know that the future of our economy is crucial to the future of our people and the cohesiveness of our society. In many ways, Scotland’s economy is successful, especially when we compare it with other less-prosperous nations around the world, but it has a massive and glaring fault line running through it—the unequal distribution of the gains of our economic success and the poverty that many members have mentioned.

Low pay and job insecurity are at the heart of our country’s problems. On Monday night, an excellent “BBC Scotland Investigates” documentary exposed the crushing, debilitating and grinding impact of low pay on people and their families, showing how it saps morale and impacts on every aspect of family life. People are unable to pay energy bills and are left staring into an empty fridge, and children go without the very basics. That is the harsh reality not just for a few people but for one Scot in five. I am ashamed to say that that is happening in my street, in my village, in my region and just yards from this building.

People are crying out for action. They need our help now and we have a moral responsibility to do something about it. We need action not next month, next year or at some time in the future when we gain additional powers and the Government of the day may or may not use them, but now. We cannot continue to blame someone else or hide behind someone else’s actions or inactions, appalling as they may be. That will not feed a single child. Let us take our jobs seriously and think about how we can effect change. We should do it quickly and do it now.

The Government did not embrace radical change last year when the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill went through Parliament. I hope that it recognises that that was a mistake and that we can and should revisit it now.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

I wonder whether Neil Findlay has read section H1 in schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, which reserves the Employment Rights Act 1996 to Westminster and therefore deprives this Parliament of the power to legislate on what people are paid. I absolutely agree that we should do it—we could make common cause in doing that thing—but does Neil Findlay take the legal point?

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

As a matter of fact, I was just reading that five minutes ago. I cannot help but recognise the glee with which Mr Stevenson tells us that we cannot do anything. That is the problem—we should be doing what we can to help people now, not gleefully talking about what we cannot do.

We should go back to the European Union and ask a different question on procurement and the living wage. I suggest that we ask how we can use public procurement to extend coverage of the living wage. We should look at how the Government pays out grants through regional selective assistance and other subsidies. Money that goes to charities, agencies and all the rest should have criteria and conditions relating to pay and conditions attached as part of the grant-awarding process. We should ensure that inward investors such as Amazon, which we paid £10 million to locate in Fife, pay fair wages and offer decent conditions, as part of the grant award. We should look at the small business bonus scheme and have a different rates for businesses that pay the living wage and meet other fair employment criteria. We should urge organisations in the charitable and social enterprise sector to lead the way as exemplars in their employment practices. I know that many do that, but not all of them do.

With the will, we can bring all the parties together to tackle the matter head on, co-operatively alongside trade unions and civic society—or we can sit back, point the finger and say that it is not our fault. I hope that the Government will set aside its previous approach and move on, thereby showing that this Parliament can put aside political differences to act quickly. I am up for that; I wonder whether the Government is.

The Labour motion focuses on the important issue of education. The Government’s record on educational attainment and college policy could be described as poor at best, and offensive at worst. As has been mentioned, we have witnessed a drop in the number of young people who are gaining national 3 to 5 qualifications. The cabinet secretary jumped up to tell us that the reduction has been not 20 per cent but 6 per cent; she must forgive me for not offering her congratulations and a round of applause on her performance. Two and a half thousand college jobs have gone and 130,000 college places have been lost. Once again, the poorest communities that are suffering the most are being failed because of the lack of focus on those who have not enjoyed their share of this country’s wealth.

Although new policies including the attainment challenge and the like are welcome, they are a drop in the ocean against the backdrop of the savage cuts to local government. West Lothian Council, which covers the cabinet secretary’s constituency, has had a cut of £88 million to its budget. In order to meet the Government’s demand on teacher numbers, the council needs 42 more teachers, but how many will funding from the Scottish Government deliver? It will deliver nine more teachers. Budgets for other services that have already been cut will have to be cut again and again. That picture is repeated across budgets and local authorities throughout the country, but the cabinet secretary seeks to blame the teachers. It is everybody and anybody’s fault but hers or that of the Government that she has been part of for the past eight years.

We cannot go on like this. Cohesiveness in our society will be achieved by driving up incomes; education is a key ingredient in that. We can either work together to do that or point the finger and blame someone else—anybody else.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I am somewhat bemused by the debate. The final paragraph of the motion states that

“education is both key to addressing the scandal of inequality in Scottish society and a crucial investment in the future of Scotland’s economy.”

As Mark McDonald lucidly pointed out, it is but one key—albeit a very important one—to addressing both those issues.

My bemusement is also caused by the motion’s call for an impact assessment of the attainment gap in Scotland’s schools. The Education and Culture Committee is doing that very thing with, I have to say, significant input from its two Labour members and Mrs Scanlon. We believe that the route to closing the attainment gap—our committee will consider this—is by improving skills and achievement and thus the economy. Apart from money, we will consider all the other things that contribute to investment. We will also consider the assessment of the roles of parents, teachers, associated organisations, local authorities and so on.

At the heart of that is fairness. Tackling inequality is part of that and supporting equality of access to education is a priority. Inequality in education is a hurdle to overcome as we plan for ever-greater sustainable economic and environmental growth. However, as I say, other issues have an impact on that.

In that one context, the motion rightly speaks of education as one key element in Scotland’s future economy, but the motion goes astray elsewhere. It references the OECD report. I have a copy here. The report makes no mention of Scotland. It does, however, highlight that, as the motion should have recognised, the ever-increasing disparity in inequality is one of the UK’s making over the past 30 years. If you doubt me, read the full OECD report or, more important, read Joseph Stiglitz’s informative book, “The Price of Inequality”.

Education attainment, and our economy, has been at the mercy of that lemming-like philosophy of financial greed as pursued by UK Governments over that period of time. There was rising income inequality amid two recessions; in the latter one, that curbed Scotland’s ability—despite what Mr Findlay says, I do not know where we will print all the money—and curbed Scottish budgets from the UK.

Income equality rising by only three Gini points has dragged down economic growth by 0.35 per cent a year for not just the past seven years, but in the past 25 years and, given the economic drag, for some time before that. Between 1990 and 2010, economic growth would have been—could have been—nine percentage points higher had income levels been held steady at the 1985 level. From that growth would have flown more revenue and the ability to spend more if the Government so willed on areas such as education and reducing the inequality gap.

To help you again, 1985 is 23 years before this Government came to power. Successive UK Governments have not only run finances into the ground, but put consumption before investment in our skills, our productivity and our children. There is no evidence anywhere of tackling inequality, unfairness or injustice, which now sees the UK with the fourth-highest level of income inequality in the OECD countries. I repeat that Scotland’s budget has suffered as a consequence.

I welcome Neil Findlay’s comment about talking and working together. However, there is no point in Labour coming here weeping crocodile tears having hitched its wagon to that lot in last year’s referendum campaign. If we are to address—

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Brodie, could you—

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

If we are to manage—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I have a point of order, Mr Brodie. I was also about to speak to you about unparliamentary language.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Presiding Officer, I understand that we are expected to talk to colleagues in a courteous manner. I do not think that referring to the Conservatives as “that lot” is courteous in any way.

May I ask through you, Presiding Officer, that the member apologises and retracts that statement?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Under the standing orders, members should be courteous to each other. They should also address their remarks through the chair, and they should not speak while the Presiding Officer is speaking.

Mr Brodie, please resume.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I accept that and I will apologise, Presiding Officer. The point is now made.

If we manage not just to address poverty, which is critical, but to address lower incomes and the redistribution of wealth through a unified tax and benefits system, we can further expand attainment, personal development and the skills that are allied to vocational and academic aspirations.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

No—I have already had one.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am afraid that Mr Brodie is closing.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

That can come only with full financial responsibility. We must acknowledge our elevated place in the global education galaxy, but we must still recognise the importance of core education skills.

We can swap conflicting numbers, as some members appear to want to do, but we need to get behind our excellent teachers, our college lecturers, parents and the pupils themselves to focus on supporting the changes and tackling the challenges that we face. We need to provide funds such as the attainment challenge fund and to promote school improvement partnerships. We need to work together to make the necessary changes and diminish the challenges that we face, so let us do that.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Jackie Baillie’s motion highlights the OECD research that was published in December last year, which found that income inequality has a negative and statistically significant effect on medium-term economic growth. That same analysis tells us that the Gini coefficient for the OECD increased from 0.29 in the 1980s to 0.32 in 2012, so inequality is a growing problem right across western developed societies.

Inequality is a particular problem in the UK—the union that Jackie Baillie and her Conservative partners in Better Together campaigned so vigorously for Scotland to retain. They said that we were better together. Indeed, as part of the Smith commission, Labour continued to repeat that mistake and dug in its heels to prevent a transfer to Scotland of powers that would allow us to reduce inequality in our society, most notably through the minimum wage and welfare measures. Perhaps Labour members will now consider the folly of that position in the light of the general election result, when the people of Scotland told them exactly what they thought of Scottish Labour and its position.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I understand the member’s argument; it is a cyclical one that she makes constantly. I point her to Joseph Stiglitz’s view that, of the three determinants of inequality, education is the one that provides a solution. Responsibility for education is wholly devolved. What has Joan McAlpine’s party’s Government done to tackle inequality in the past eight years?

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I am very glad that Jackie Baillie mentioned Professor Stiglitz. If she is a real admirer of him, she might have heard him on Radio 4’s “Start the Week” this week, on which he praised the Scottish Government’s record on using education as a means of reducing inequality. He spoke at some length about how the Scottish Government was pursuing social democratic policies that were absent in the rest of the UK. He was unstinting in his praise of the Scottish Government with regard to education.

Only this week, European Union research told us that the UK is the most unequal country in Europe. Professor Stiglitz—who, as we have heard, is the world’s foremost authority on economic inequality—has made clear his view of the UK and, in particular, its following of the American model of higher education, which has entrenched and driven inequality, not just in the US but in other societies that have followed that model. It would be interesting to know what Professor Stiglitz thought of the UK Labour Party going into the general election arguing that students in England and Wales should pay £6,000 a year in tuition fees for university. He certainly would not have approved of that. That proposed arrangement compares very poorly with our record in Scotland, which is second to none in Europe.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Does Joan McAlpine think that Professor Stiglitz would approve of cuts in bursaries for the poorest students in Scotland compared with those for students in the rest of the UK? We have the poorest support and the highest drop-out rates. I would have thought that anyone who was committed to equality in education would at least want to look at those statistics and think about what we could do now to make a difference to the lives of the students concerned.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The NUS has praised the Scottish Government’s package for students as the best in the UK. Research by the NUS shows that participation in higher education decreases by 4.4 per cent for every £1,000 increase in fees, so we can add up the cost of Labour’s proposal to charge students £6,000 a year in university fees.

Given that we are debating a Labour motion, it is worth noting that Labour voted against the Post-16 Education (Scotland) Act 2013, which put into law for the first time a requirement for universities to widen access for students from poorer backgrounds. At that time, Labour refused to listen to people such as NUS Scotland; John Henderson, chief executive of Scotland’s Colleges; and Professor Sir Timothy O’Shea, then principal of Edinburgh university, all of whom praised a bill that Labour inexplicably voted against.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

No. I have already taken two interventions.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member is also approaching her last minute.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The effects of welfare reform and social inequality that my colleague Kevin Stewart talked passionately about have been self-evident for some weeks now. In fact, the Welfare Reform Committee has been taking evidence on the effect of austerity on families, and when we took evidence from social work chiefs a few weeks ago, they talked about the effects on families and how the number of children at risk or being taken into care was rising as a result of welfare cuts. We also know from Sheffield Hallam University research that those cuts impact most directly on couples with children and single parents.

If that is what is happening at the sharp end, it follows that attainment will be affected by a rise in austerity—I have to say, the Labour Party did very little to counter that in the last general election campaign with its support for £30 billion of cuts over the next few years that can only make the situation worse.

I will finish off by quoting the name of the day—[Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please. The member is closing.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

In “The Price of Inequality”, Professor Joe Stiglitz says:

“The facts shouldn’t get in the way of a pleasant fantasy.”

That is a lesson for the Labour Party. It should note the facts of its own record in supporting Tory austerity—[Interruption.]