Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hear what was said in response, but the point that I am making is that the ability to express oneself through touch typing, rather than the two-finger approach—where the brain is focusing on identifying a particular letter or number on the keyboard—is of tremendous advantage in life for the huge range of occupations where one needs to express oneself. It is difficult to think of many areas of work, other than some manual labour, where one does not require to express oneself.

The evidence shows that somebody who can touch type is 300 per cent more productive than somebody who cannot. I believe that it shows that children with dyslexia can gain from having that skill and that those who come to Scotland from other countries—with other languages—vastly increase their literacy skills by being able to touch type quickly. The evidence shows that some children with special needs will benefit and that all children who are able to touch type develop greater confidence in their abilities. Some people find handwriting difficult; I am a left-handed person, and we tend to smudge the ink as it hits the page, so we find typing a less physically arduous thing to do, particularly in the examination context.

The evidence is there for everybody to see. I must say, convener, that I am pretty disappointed with the replies. This is an area where the education establishment needs to think carefully about whether we are letting down children in Scotland.

In other countries, touch typing is a mandatory part of the curriculum—I can provide more evidence on that. I hope that we can come back to the matter. It would be sad if children in Scotland are missing out on a skill that in other countries is properly regarded as central to functioning in the modern digital age, because the proper use of a QWERTY keyboard cannot be acquired naturally.

First, I wish to express my thanks for the excellent work done by teachers and others in our schools.

My question relates to the use of digital technology. The Scottish Government has provided £25 million to assist with the provision of a digital device to children and young people, particularly to those who have been identified as being at risk of digital exclusion. I know that a lot of good work has been done by local government on distributing those devices. I have the stats but, in the interest of brevity, I will not read them out.

One would not hand out a violin or a trumpet to a child without arranging for that child to get tuition in how to play the instrument. However, it seems as though we are taking for granted that, if we just hand out a digital device, that in itself will suffice, whereas the essential skill, I would submit, in the use of these devices is the facility to touch type. That allows the brain to concentrate on what one wants to say rather than on finding the keys on the keyboard—to concentrate on what rather than how.

In this digital age, touch typing will be an essential skill for people in many walks of life and it is not a skill that is naturally acquired. I understand that it takes between 15 to 20 hours of the correct repetition exercises for the brain to acquire the facility to identify the keys automatically without thinking, which then allows one to apply one’s brain with full, 100 per cent, effort.

Now that I have set out that thesis, do Mr Dempster and Mr Hutchison agree with my analysis? Can they explain to what extent proper courses on touch typing, including monitoring and tuition can be provided? As I say, 15 to 20 hours is what is required. If such courses cannot be provided, should there not be a facility for every school to be able to get an expert to train teachers in how to teach touch typing and would that be something that would provide a tremendous additional skill for our children in Scotland?

He seems to have frozen, as far as I can see.

I very much welcome the additional investment that will allow Scottish local authorities and schools to provide additional teachers. I will ask the cabinet secretary questions in two areas. The first relates to the additional costs of education provision in rural parts of Scotland, and especially the Highland Council area. As the cabinet secretary knows, that area includes 29 high schools and 204 schools in total, which is the largest number in Scotland. A great number of those schools, and particularly the primary schools, have very small rolls, which means that the number of teachers that Highland Council must employ per pupil will be greater than the average in urban council areas. In addition, the extra transport costs and the higher costs of building work, be it new build or repair, are recognised factors.

The other point that I bring to the cabinet secretary’s attention is that my information from close discussions with senior officials at Highland Council is that those extra costs have been exacerbated as a result of restrictions in the construction sector. For example, there has been restricted capacity and less competition.

I know that the local government funding formula tries to reflect rurality, but the cabinet secretary will be aware that the committee has already raised the issue with her in the current session of Parliament. Will she outline for me and other members who represent rural or largely rural constituencies how we can be sure that rural authorities have sufficient resource under the formula? Is there scope and a need to revisit the details of the formula to ensure that the important factor of rurality, given the costs of providing education, is properly accounted for?

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that comprehensive answer, particularly regarding the inclusion of the Highland Council area and others in the attainment funding. As she rightly says, poverty is no stranger to several parts of the Highlands and, indeed, my constituency, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government recognises that. It is a step forward. I will relay the cabinet secretary’s comments to senior officials in Highland Council, with whom, as it happens, I will be in touch later today.

I want to ask the cabinet secretary about another area. How is provision made in our secondary schools to assist those pupils who have mental health issues? I recognise that the prime responsibility for that rests with the national health service, but I am mindful of the fact that very often, according to information that I have from my constituency work, early intervention by specific allocated staff in schools that is designed to assist teenagers who are undergoing various forms of mental ill health can play a really important part. After all, many teenagers are slow to trust people and take advice, so it is good for them to build a relationship with someone in whom they have confidence in order to help them through difficulties. Those may include Asperger’s syndrome, autism, anorexia, self-harm and other very serious matters that adolescents may experience.

I have recently dealt with a harrowing constituency case. I will not go into the details here, but I feel that the provision that is available in some of the schools in my constituency, although I stress that the standard of assistance for those who need it is very high and it is very much appreciated, is simply too limited in its scope. One headteacher told me that he could do with three times as many teachers as he currently has to deal with that particular area, which is so important in helping young people who are troubled for one reason or another.

In asking that question—I am sorry that it was somewhat longer than I intended—I appreciate that it is not primarily your responsibility, cabinet secretary. Nevertheless, tackling mental ill health requires collaboration across schools, health services, social services and other areas of public life, as well as with the third sector. How can we ensure that every school is able to provide a sufficient level of support in that area? What reporting mechanisms exist, for example, to enable headteachers to report to local authorities, education directors and so on? I am not familiar with that world. Do we need to do more to ensure that there is reporting of outcomes to local authorities, for example, so that accountability exists in every one of the 32?

I am very pleased to hear of the recent development of a counsellor in every secondary school. That is extremely welcome. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her answer. I hope and expect that she will keep the matter under close review as part of her work with her Cabinet colleagues.

I am interested by that reply, because I got the impression from your evidence earlier that your argument was that a mandatory registration scheme, which is what is being proposed—a statutory scheme could be incorporated, of course—could not enable the fit and proper person test to be introduced. I am looking on the Scottish Government website at “Landlord Registration in Scotland: Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities”, which was published in 2017. Under heading 4—“The ‘Fit and Proper Person’ Test”—the guidance states:

“Local authorities must refuse an application for registration if not satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to let houses.”

Therefore, the fit and proper person test applies already to the existing landlord registration process—and rightly so.

As Mr Fraser does, I let a property long-term; I recall the form, which I believe requires people to submit information on whether they have had problems with the police, for example. It seems to me that a fit and proper person test is already part of the registration scheme that applies to long lets, so there is therefore absolutely no reason why it should not be applied to a registration scheme for short lets, is there?

The fundamental difference between a licensing scheme and a notification scheme is very simple: Scotland’s local authorities will have the power to refuse a licence, which means that business will be terminated. That is not part of a notification scheme. Therefore, the difference is inherent and draconian.

There are 17,794 self-catering properties in Scotland, which contribute £867 million to the economy, and there are 23,979 full-time equivalent jobs. I think that it is estimated that there are about 30,000 Airbnb properties. The owners of all those tens of thousands of properties will now have fear that their business might be confiscated or terminated. That is the difference between the two types of scheme.

Since the cabinet secretary has raised the issues of antisocial behaviour and safety standards, I wish to probe her answers to colleagues’ helpful questioning on a couple of aspects. The law on fire and electrical safety standards already exists. When you wrote to the committee on 7 October, you made it absolutely clear that the provisions will not enhance or change the existing law, which already—quite rightly—applies to all properties. You wrote:

“We are reviewing the fire safety and electrical safety requirements to ensure that they do not go further than existing law.”

If the rules will not enhance or increase the standards, the only way that the protection that the cabinet secretary referred to would be conferred by the provisions and could apply would be if every single property were inspected regularly. I read the revised business and regulatory impact assessment yesterday; it makes it absolutely clear that inspections are by no means required; it specifically says that they are not a requirement. If there will be no mandatory inspections—I am not arguing that there should be—and if the law will remain exactly as it is, how can you justify the assertion that the provisions, if passed, would provide additional protection?

Thank you for those answers.

As Rachel Nicholson has just confirmed, the duties apply to everybody anyway. Obviously, we all want the law to be applied and observed by everybody. I make the point that neither hotels nor long-term lets are subject to licensing requirements. Therefore, if consistency is meant to be the sine qua non—the essential element—it ain’t there, because various types of premises do not have to follow that licensing requirement. The requirement carries with it the risk that people will lose their business. As they come out of the pandemic, that is a pretty serious threat to hang above them like a sword of Damocles, over the next few years.

I turn to antisocial behaviour because—contrary to what seems to have been said previously—specific legislation deals with antisocial behaviour in holiday lets: namely, the Antisocial Behaviour Notices (Houses Used for Holiday Purposes) (Scotland) Order 2011. That legislation exists; local authorities have powers to deal with antisocial behaviour that occurs in short lets. Why is it necessary to introduce a licensing requirement, given that local authorities already have the powers that are required to deal with antisocial behaviour, should it occur in short-term let properties?

My final sub-clause is to say that those proposals should provide a clear way forward.