Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, and good morning to the Deputy First Minister and his officials.

The opening statement explained that the reason why the regulations set out a process assuming that errors might be made is that there is a recognition that fraudulent applications may be made, which possibility cannot be entirely ruled out. It is fair to say that every MSP recognises the need for the payments to be made to victims of appalling sexual abuse. That is not in dispute, nor are the provisions that payments to professionals do not require to be repaid in the event that, unwittingly, there has been a fraudulent application.

I will ask the Deputy First Minister a series of questions in that area, and perhaps he can flesh out his answer in correspondence. Has modelling been carried out to try to elicit the quantity of applications that might be in the fraudulent category? Is the threshold for supplying evidence that is sufficient to establish entitlement to trigger a payment perhaps lower than the standard of satisfying the balance of probability test in court? Is the Deputy First Minister satisfied that the threshold is pitched at the right level?

I am afraid that I do not have detail to back this up, but there have been schemes in other parts of the United Kingdom. Has the DFM considered with those Administrations—or have his officials done so—how we can learn from their experience, in order to minimise error and fraud and ensure that we achieve what we all wish to achieve without loss to the public purse through fraudulent applications, given the obvious risks that might give rise to them?

I hope that I have set out the questions clearly. I gave in-principle notice to the DFM that I was planning to raise those issues.

I thank the witnesses very much for their evidence thus far.

For us all, our lives revolve around our children to some extent. In 22 years as a constituency MSP, I have been struck by the fact that the lives of parents with children with profound additional special needs are completely dominated by their children. It has very often seemed to me that they fight a constant daily uphill struggle and battle to obtain sufficient and appropriate provision for their children. I know that the witnesses will be acutely aware of that. What, in particular, should we, as a country, strive to do to ensure that children with the most profound needs have access to the services that they and their families deserve?

I am grateful for those answers. I do not wish to inadvertently paint an overly negative picture, because there are many positives. Some 95 per cent of children with additional support needs were educated in mainstream classes, for example, and teacher numbers have risen from 52,247 in 2019 to 53,400 now.

Even more important than that, perhaps, is the fact that the achievements of children with particular needs have been extraordinary, as a result of their efforts and the efforts of their teachers, support assistants and families. I can see that pupils with additional support needs continue to achieve, with 89.6 per cent of school leavers with additional support needs having a positive initial destination, nearly three quarters of children with additional support needs leaving school with one pass or more at level 5 or better and a staggering 91 per cent of children with additional support needs having one or more qualification at level 4. I want to read those facts into the record because there is a danger that we might be painting a negative picture.

That said, we all want to achieve more, and my focus is on those children with particularly severe needs. I hope that we will come back to that issue.

I absolutely agree with what has been said about the need for respite care and bespoke services. I recognise the excellent work that is done in many schools in my constituency in this regard, which I have witnessed over the past couple of decades. I am grateful to the witnesses for their contributions this morning.

Thank you for your comparative analysis, Professor Stobart. We should be willing to learn from other countries, and we owe you a debt of gratitude for the work that you have done.

My favourite quote about education, which I suspect you will know very well, is from the famous Irish poet William Butler Yeats, who said:

“Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.”

I think that you alluded to that strand by saying that, although we want a mix of examinations and assessment, the key thing is to inspire young people, engage their interest, get them enthused and let them think that they can do this, and to avoid the scenario in which they turn off because they think that it is beyond them, too difficult or too boring.

If we agree that that is a desirable aim in general, how do you think that we can light that fire more, in practice, for more young people, particularly those who, for whatever reason, become disengaged, perhaps at an early stage in secondary school?

I, too, had taken very clearly from Professor Stobart’s paper that he is proposing not the abolition of examinations but a far more nuanced set of suggestions. Professor Stobart, what do you consider to be the benefits and disbenefits, if you like, of examinations as a method of helping young people to prepare for later life and to develop themselves under the CFE principles? We have heard from Mr Rennie and others about the potential advantages of examinations, but they also have adverse elements for some children. How do you see the overall benefits and disbenefits of examinations as a method to use in devising a system that prepares children for later life?

So, examinations should not be so much about the regurgitation of facts, with no underlying purpose other than as an exercise in recollection; they should be about the promotion of better understanding, rational analysis and the ability to think for oneself. Is that the sort of thing that examinations should try to achieve, rather than fact memorisation?

I picked up from reading your paper that a greater emphasis on and inclusion of vocational education and training at secondary school, at least in the first few years, would be a desirable option to consider. Is that a fair representation of one of your recommendations?

Thank you.

I do not know whether I have put it better than you. Incidentally, I think that W B Yeats nicked his quote from Socrates, but there we are. It is just a random reflection.

I am grateful to both witnesses for their answers and their willingness to take a constructive approach. However, I want to make a couple of points.

Stephen Boyle said that, with regard to the attainment fund, there would be a further look at hidden poverty and deprivation in rural areas to find out whether there is more inequality that needs to be addressed by additional funding and whether the Auditor General and the Accounts Commission, as advisers on financial performance, should include in their criticism of the Scottish Government the point that more needs to be done on that. I welcome that, but the point that I am making is more basic. It is that inequality is inherent in the system of cost allocation because it costs more to provide the same services in an area of sparse population. More buildings are needed and there are smaller rolls so the cost per head is obviously greater.

I contend that inequality is a systemic issue, and I did not get the impression that either witness accepted that point. I read the report prepared by both bodies, which is entitled “Improving outcomes for young people through school education”. I am not necessarily a top-grade student—I never detained the judges’ time much when they made decisions on prize giving—but, in the 149 paragraphs and 49 pages, I can find no reference at all to rural cost issues. The word “rural” does not appear anywhere, as far as my reading of the report over the past 24 hours reveals. I put it to the witnesses that that appears to be a neglected area. It is an omission, a lacuna and a gap.

On a constructive point, I urge the witnesses to take the matter away and look at it again to see whether their bodies’ approach needs to be amended. Although Sharon O’Connor is correct that they are not policy-making bodies, their role is essential to good policy making and their advice informs it, as I know from my 14 years as a minister.