 The next item of business today is a member's business debate on motion number 11796, in the name of David Stewart, on educational psychologist numbers at dangerously low levels in Scotland. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would be grateful to those members who wish to speak in the debate. I could press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible. I call on David Stewart to open the debate to seven minutes, please, Mr Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'd like to thank, first of all, all members across the chamber who have taken the time to sign my motion and to attend today's debate. I'd also like to extend my thanks to the many organisations that provided briefings ahead of the debate on this important issue. My concerns about educational psychology numbers in Scotland is one that I've previously raised with the former Cabinet Secretary, Mike Russell, on a number of occasions. This was sparked by a constituent from Murray. The young students' anxieties about the future of educational psychology struck a chord with me and has led to today's debate. Educational psychology training in Scotland has been described as a ticking time bomb facing the sector by the Scottish Children's Service Coalition. It was first raised with me in the autumn of 2013, when a young, bright and enthusiastic constituent came to discuss the numerous issues and challenges that were facing those seeking to work as educational psychologists and the pressure on those currently working. The challenge facing educational psychology in Scotland is really twofold. Firstly, there is a shortage in the number of trained educational psychologists that are currently practising in Scotland. That has been described as dangerously low by the National Association of Scottish Principal Education Psychologists and the Scottish Division of Educational Psychologists. Their report in 2013 concluded that educational psychology faced an impending crisis. As it stands today, up to a quarter of Scotland's current educational psychologists could retire within the next four years, and there are far too few new postgraduate trainees coming into the field to replenish those numbers. That leads to a second and interconnected challenge in the training of new educational psychologists and the point that my constituent raised directly with me. As members will know, the Scottish Government took the decision to scrap the bursary paid to train the educational psychologists in 2012. That means that each individual student is responsible for meeting the entire £18,000 university tuition fees from their own pockets. In addition, there is the burden of covering living expenses of food travel and accommodation over the two years postgraduate course. That puts even more debt for those who have accumulated debt during their undergraduate study. Students who are set into the course and who will enter part in the financial burden are eligible for a career development loan of around £3,400 across the two-year period. That leaves a massive shortfall of more than £14,000. That is a huge financial burden that is crippling to those currently on courses, which led to 70 per cent reduction in applications from new candidates since the crucial funding was removed. The County report of 2001 reviewed the provision of educational psychology services, and the ministers warned them of the urgent need to recruit and train more educational psychologists. What we have seen is a growth in the numbers of children identified as facing additional support needs, which has doubled from 2010 to 2014. I believe that what we need is to reintroduce bursaries for students. We need to give local authorities the minimum amount of psychologists that we need to operate the system. Otherwise, I believe that we will have a meltdown in educational psychology, and I call in the Government to think again and reintroduce minimum numbers and reintroduce bursaries. I turn to the open debate speeches of four minutes, please, and I call George Adam to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. I thank David Stewart for bringing this to the chamber. The reason I want to talk about this is to participate in this debate is for two very practical reasons. It is not just about the educational psychologists. Some of the points brought up by Mr Stewart are quite accurate in so much that there are quite a number of families having to deal with members of the family with learning difficulties and being autistic within the autistic scale. From my own reason, as I've got on-going constituency cases, where Renfrewshire education authority is letting my constituents down in this case, things like not giving support to autistic young people who have timetables, not giving them an empty timetable because they don't have the support there. Local authorities should be looking at one another and looking at themselves to say how they deliver and support those families. I'm also coming from very personal reasons, as a father of a son who has learning difficulties. He is now 23, but us as a family had to go through some of the situation that many families are still going through at this stage. I would say that, in my case, in Renfrewshire, the issues have been there for a long time in the local authority, and the difficulties that families face now are very similar to the difficulties that we face then. Local authorities would have to say, are they supporting families and young people enough in this case? Educational psychologists are extremely important, and they are there to support the learners. However, I believe that the additional support act gives the opportunity to enable parents and young people to request the education authority to arrange for a child or a young person to have an assessment. It is up for that particular education authority to decide who is the appropriate person to deal with that assessment now. As a parent and as a parliamentarian and representative of the people of Paisley, we, them and myself do not care who makes the decision and who does it. We just need the support to make sure that that family and that child get the opportunity to go forward. When we are talking about this, we have to talk in partnership with the Scottish Government, as it does with local authorities, to ensure that we can deliver that. In a lot of cases, I am finding at constituent level that families just do not seem to be getting that support from when their children have special needs. As I say, that has been an on-going issue in the past and in the present as well. When we have to look at it, we have to make sure that we support those families. I am aware that some local authorities have been issues in other parts where we have BSL teachers being able to help classes in primary schools and ensuring that deaf children have the opportunity to engage fully with their classes. That is a perfect example, because some local authorities, like one of the Ayrshire authorities, have pulled their resources to make sure that they can find out the area where they need to put those professionals in. One of the things that came up when we, as the Education and Skills Committee, looked at the budget this year, and we looked at the fact of how we were delivering secondary and primary school education. One of the problems that kept coming out was that the joint working and joint services with local authorities just was not happening. They were not working together to do those types of things. In that case, in order to work with local authorities, I think that the best way for them would be to work with one another to find if there are areas and districts that have a higher incidence of children or young people who have learning difficulties or need that extra support, so that they can actually put that support into that local authority. It is another example of how local authorities could possibly work better and smarter with one another, as opposed to just looking at it. On that, in closing, I welcome the debate, but it is not quite as simple as the motion itself puts it. It is quite complex and there is a lot involved here. I think that we should maybe work with local authorities to try and help them, but they must take responsibility for some of the services that they offer. Thank you. I now call Malcolm Chisholm to be followed by Mary Scanlon. I congratulate Dave Stewart for bringing forward this important debate today and for highlighting the disparity between the supply of vital psychological support and the demand for it. The motion encapsulates that in terms of 394 educational psychologists currently, and we need over 1,000. That disparity exists in spite of the fact that educational psychology has a statutory function. Clearly, it is crucial to the national priority of supporting early and effective intervention, and it is also essential for important and admirable Government strategies such as GERFEC and important legislation such as the Children and Young People's Bill. Without that support, many children and young people will continue to struggle with learning, without proper assessment, without a clear plan for their education path and with detrimental consequences for their mental and emotional wellbeing. We should also remember that educational psychologists are critical to planning for young people in care and provide specialist advice on a variety of education contexts from case work advice to whole-school analysis and strategic development. I have been around long enough to remember similar issues being raised in the early years of this Parliament and, indeed, in the two years before the start of this Parliament. I remember Brian Wilson as education minister between 1997 and 1999 increasing the numbers of educational psychologists. I remember Cathy Jamison in the early years of this Parliament conducting a review into the whole issue, and we had a report in 2002 with 30 important recommendations, many of which are still relevant today. I noticed that the National Scottish Steering Group for Educational Psychology in 2013 also recommended a review to developing a national framework. I hope that the minister and the Scottish Government will consider that recommendation, because it is just as relevant today as it was two years ago. One fundamental problem, as Dave Stewart emphasised centrally in his opening speech, is the loss of the bursary. If we are serious about making sure that no child slips through the system without diagnosis and support, we have to revisit the decision to remove the bursary that is paid to trainee educational psychologists. The motion refers to £25,000 to self-fund course fees, travel and living expenses. That is thought to be directly connected to the 70 per cent drop in applicants for educational psychology courses. Dave Stewart also reminded us that that is particularly serious when we are advised that a quarter of educational psychologists may retire in the next four years. Emma Brown, chair of the Scottish Division of Educational Psychology Training Committee, highlighted the significant concern, as long ago as 2012, as soon after the significant change in the bursary provision was made. She said that the change would affect, and I quote, "...equality of access for candidates to courses, quality of future educational psychology graduates and educational psychology services ability to fulfil their duties locally and nationally." She also appealed to the cabinet secretary at that time to consult with professional bodies about this important matter, and it seems that that did not happen, certainly no change took place. I hope that the cabinet secretary and the minister who is replying to the debate today will consult with professional bodies, will consider a review in a national framework, as I suggested earlier on, and most of all will revisit the decision to remove the bursary. Thank you very much. I now call Mary Scanlon to be followed by Jenny Marra. I also thank David Stewart for securing this debate on the shortage of educational psychologists. It is important to point out that there are shortages of psychologists across most disciplines, although today we are only looking at the shortage in one particular area. With 100 per cent increase in the number of children recorded with additional support needs and a fairly static number of educational psychologists, we have a very urgent problem. We had an urgent problem in 2002, and it is even more urgent now. Of course, I do appreciate that not every child with ASN needs to see a psychologist, but for those who need to, we should be doing all we can to help. Educational psychology profession estimates a need for over 1,000, and yet we currently have around 400. The 25 per cent due to retirement in five years will bring this down to 300 with 700 vacancies. At the health committee some years ago, we were told that there is a window of opportunity at certain ages of a child's development. If that window of opportunity is missed at that age, it is missed forever. It is too late. I think that that is what is critical here. It is not as if the issue has come to the Scottish Government's attention, it is not as if it is new. I asked several questions in August this year, and was met with the response from Mike Russell, and I quote, We are working in partnership with the National Scottish Tearing Group for educational psychologists to ensure a sustainable supply of educational psychologists to meet potential future needs. That was over five months ago, and I am hopeful today that the partnership working for over the period of time will result in some positive news in the summing up by the minister. As Malcolm Mitch has said, we are very good at passing legislation in this Parliament on named persons, additional support needs and stating that there is a statutory requirement for local authorities in Scotland to provide educational psychology services, and yet, when it comes to ensuring that the appropriately qualified and trained people are in place, their funding is cut, resulting in a 70 per cent decrease in applications for training. Educational psychologists are not just an added extra, they are not just a little hobby course. They are essential to addressing inequalities, something that the Government says they are in favour of. They are essential to promoting early and effective intervention to support the wellbeing of children and young people across Scotland. They play a valuable role in establishing the continuity of support for children and young people in the often very difficult transition from child to adult services and also other key services, and yet the last Scottish Government review on the provision of educational psychology services was in 2002, 13 years ago, so this hardly sends out a signal that this is a valued and essential workforce, critical to the health and wellbeing of children across Scotland. I think that we are all agreed across this chamber that attainment in schools is a major challenge. We can all agree on that. A major function of educational psychologists is to address inequality and the gaps in attainment and achievement outcomes of the vulnerable and at risk in society. The Scottish Government constantly tells us that higher education is based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay—that is not the case for educational psychologists. I thought that George Adam's contribution was excellent, and I asked the minister to explain what recourse do parents have when councils fail to provide an educational psychologist when it is deemed as a statutory requirement. I come to the chamber on this topic, which is quite disappointed, because this is an issue that I raised with Mike Russell on at least a couple of occasions in this chamber before, and I believe with Alistair Allan also. The Government has really let this situation come about, especially over the past few years, and since members across this chamber have raised their concerns, they have not taken any action to do anything about it. I think that it is often useful to look at the truth and the stories behind some of the statistics that we are presented with. I am looking at the briefing paper that we received today from the National Scottish Steering Group for educational psychologists. In table 4, it has the number of applicants, withdrawals and number of students that took up courses at each of the four universities that offer the qualification in educational psychology. When the bursaries were changed for the intake in 2012, I noticed that 13 withdrawals were made from the course at Dundee University. One of those withdrawals came to my surgery in Dundee and told me her story. She was a very well qualified Oxford graduate who was working in our schools in Angus. She was a young teacher, and she had a great rapport with the young people that she was teaching in quite a deprived area. So much so that she wanted to train to become an educational psychologist. However, the funding arrangements that were changed by the Government precluded her from doing so. She presented me with being a very conscientious young woman. She presented me with all the information available to her, and she said to me that it actually makes more sense for me to go back down south and train as an educational psychologist. I can afford to train there and I will have to relocate my husband and go and live there and work in a school there. I thought that it was a great shame when that young woman left my surgery that day that the children of Arbroath or the children of North East of Scotland would no longer have her services in the very important area of educational psychology. Liz Smith was right during First Minister's questions to draw the link between mental health and educational psychology. We know that educational psychology is a preventative measure and is an early intervention in mental health. I also think of the waiting lists to see educational psychologists in my home city of Dundee. I have spoken again to the parents who have come to my surgeries anxious that they are worried that they are not quite right about their children's behaviour or about their children's happiness or about their general wellbeing. They are not able—they are told—that there is a waiting list of weeks and weeks to see an educational psychologist. Mary Scanlon was right to point out that this is a statutory duty, a legal duty of this Government to provide those services. The fact that the Government has now been in place for eight years but I have let our workforce age to the point where we are about to lose most of our qualified educational psychologists is extremely worrying. I would end on the point about the preventative agenda. I said that in the chamber a few weeks ago. I think that every minister in Nicola Sturgeon's cabinet needs to take the Christie commission off their shelves and dust it down because those recommendations that Campbell Christie has spent a long time working on were about a preventative agenda in our public services. I think that educational psychology is a very good example of that. I would urge the minister to rethink the bursary options and the number of educational psychologists that he is going to train. Like others, I congratulate David Stewart on bringing this important debate to the Parliament. What David Stewart's motion highlights is an imbalance in educational psychologists in Scotland. Demand has risen and is rising and supply is falling. Combine that with an aging workforce and it all points to a worsening situation. The Scottish division of educational psychologists report states that a quarter of educational psychologists may retire in just four years. That is alarming. According to the workforce planning meeting for educational psychologists in November 2011, approaching a third of educational psychologists in Scotland are aged 55 and over and are likely to retire over the next five years. George Adam mentioned or hinted at this not being a new problem. It has been on-going, but the Scottish Children's Services Coalition highlighted the increased demand that we face now. Children with additional support needs has increased from 69,587 in 2010 to more than double 140,542 to be precise by 2014. That is, of course, partly due to increased awareness, but it is still a demand nonetheless. The early intervention of educational psychologists is critical. It is statutory also. It is part of getting it right for every child and crucial if we want to deliver the ambitions of the Children and Young People Act of 2014. The British Psychological Society highlights this and I quote from them, it is a worrying picture given the rising levels of need among Scotland's children and young people. It goes on to say that this pressure on existing services jeopardises the national policy objectives to promote early and effective intervention to support the wellbeing of children and young people across Scotland. Educational psychologists are vital for helping children or young people who may struggle with education. In the past, those young people felt isolated, felt let down by the education system and therefore by society. That often led to underachieving, frustration and low morale. Educational psychologists work in providing support for therapeutic behaviour management programmes, personalising the needs of our young people is crucial. It is therefore vital that no matter where you are in Scotland, you have access to educational psychologists at the earliest and tamiest way possible. They provide the support that our teachers and parents need to provide the strategies that are needed for those young people to achieve, learn, participate in our education system, society and future workplace. I mentioned that the supply and demand for educational psychologists is out of kilter and part of that is that we are not training enough educational psychologists for not just the rising demand but for the ageing and retiring current psychologists. In the minutes from the 8 March 2013 educational psychology workforce planning meeting, the Strathclyde university representative said that he considered for their area that 20 students need to graduate from the programme each year to keep things in equilibrium. In 2013-14, there were just 17 students who were on that course. The Scottish division of educational psychologists report mentioned earlier also states that we need to train more. We have to look at why. It has been mentioned already that the Scottish Children's Services Coalition makes it clear in their briefing. I quote again, The removal in 2012 of the bursary paid to each trainee by the Scottish Government, coupled with a very limited loan facility, means that new trainees need to have access to around £25,000 each year for two years to self-fund course fees, travel and living expenses. That has led to a 70 per cent drop in applicants. That is a poor record by the Government. If we are serious about providing a statutory duty of educational psychology for our young people and children, the Government has to address the imbalance of demand and supply of educational psychologists in Scotland. It is a statutory duty. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the afternoon's important debate. I congratulate David Stewart and like others for securing the debate on the subject this afternoon. Educational psychologists play a vital role in schools and education establishments across Scotland. That can be denied. They assist children and young people, many of whom are enduring social and emotional problems. There can be no denying that the number of children being identified as having additional support needs has increased dramatically over the course of the last five years, more than doubling to 140,542 in 2014. It would be expected that an increase on that level would have led to a similar increase in the number of qualified professionals available to support and give assistance to those young people, their families and school staff. Sadly, we have heard in this afternoon debate that those figures show that that is not the case. With more than 140,000 children identified as having additional support needs, it is counterintuitive and it is unacceptable that Scotland has only 394 full-time educational psychologists posts. The record high was 443 in 2009 and even then that was not enough, but that is then dropped by 11 per cent. It is the case in 2015 that we only have 15 more psychologists than we did in 2001. The issue has been so serious that the Scottish Children's Services Coalition noted earlier that the increase in demand, coupled with cuts to local authority budgets, was a draw of funding for the training of educational psychologists, places that very profession close to a tipping point. That comes one year after the report, highlighted in David Stewart motion, stated that the number of trained educational psychologists is dangerously low. By taking the decision in 2012 to remove the bursary paid to each trainee, the Scottish Government is forcing many to secure £25,000 per year of their own funding for a two-year course. That is a massive obstacle to those who have a real burning desire to enter that profession to support young people. It restricts applicants and people from poorer communities from undertaking that training. I think that 70 per cent drop in applications has been mentioned before as proof of that. Emma Brown, who is the chair of the Educational Psychology Training Committee, quoted earlier by Malcolm Chisholm. Chisholm also said that we have significant concerns over the impact of that proposal and the potential impact on educational psychology services ability to fill their duties locally and nationally. That significant concern seems to be borne out. It has also been mentioned earlier about the concern that 25 per cent of existing educational psychologists are set to retire within the next four years. While I take on board a lot of the points that George Adam made about local authorities coming together to pull such specialist services, when you get to such a low level of educational psychologists with such a high level of demand, even authorities coming together to pull the resources really start to struggle to provide that service. It is really of utmost importance that the Scottish Government takes action now to look at those 70 per cent drop in those who are entering the profession. Scotland remains well short of the number of educational psychologists required and the Government really needs to take action to ensure that children with additional support needs, their family and the school staff receive the support that is there on a statutory footing that they should get the support, but the fact is that they deserve the support and they need the support and that is why the Government should be looking at this issue again. Many thanks. That concludes the open part of the debate and I now invite Dr Alice Tarallan to respond to the debate. Dr Allan, around seven minutes please. Thank you Presiding Officer. I welcome today's opportunity to discuss the role of educational psychologists. They make, as I think was clear from today's debate, a very significant and critical contribution to supporting children and young people with additional support needs and I value their contribution highly. I believe that the motion is based on a report prepared by the profession in September 2013 at the request of the National Scottish Steering Group for Educational Psychologists, which is chaired by a senior official of the Scottish Government. The purpose of the report was to provide information about the current workforce of educational psychologists so as to inform workforce planning for the profession across Scotland. To take up a question raised by Mary Scanlon about recent progress on all of those fronts, I can see that my officials through the National Steering Group have been working in close partnership with the educational psychology profession, including a representative from SDEP, the Scottish Arm of the British Psychological Society, also with COSLA and with ADES, Education Scotland and the universities that train educational psychologists. The very purpose of doing all this, of course, is to ensure that within the constraints that do exist and that they are real, we anticipate and minimise any risk to educational psychology service provision. For example, by ensuring a sustainable supply of educational psychologists to meet potential future needs and in doing so to make interventions as necessary. The Scottish Government is funding a seconded position within Education Scotland to work in 2015 with the National Steering Group on workforce planning for education psychology services in Scotland. I have seen the project plan for this role, which includes work to capture detail on the staffing situation for education psychologists and sampling to establish the range of work that they undertake. I recognise that there has been a significant increase since 2010 in the number of pupils recorded in national statistics as having additional support needs. I do not dispute the pressures around that, although I remind all members who raised the figure of a doubling in the number of children with additional support needs. That reflects a dramatic change in the way that those numbers are counted. Prior to those changes, the extra pupils were already part of the school population and were already having additional support needs met. The two crucial aspects are reinstating the bursary, which was taken away in 2012, and having a minimum number of educational psychologists by local authority. The analogy that I will give the minister is to look at clinical psychologists who still have a bursary who have doubled their number and have a minimum number across Scotland, take a leaf out of their book, and that is well down the route to getting the problem solved. I was meeting clinical psychologists at another event this morning, and I understand the point that the member is seeking to make. It is important to say, and I will stress that, although I would freely admit that there has been a reduction in the number of people applying for the course around educational psychology, there has not been a reduction in the number of people going through the course and coming out as education psychologists. I understand the point that the member has made, but I must make some progress, not least in answering the other point that he made, which I will just come to. It remains, and rightly so, for local authorities to take decisions around the number of educational psychologists that they employ. The prioritisation and delivery of the services that educational psychologists provide. Many Scandalon asked a good question about specifically what recourse parents have if local authorities fail in that duty to provide services. Parents do have recourse to mediation, to independent adjudication, and specifically to the additional needs tribunal around those important issues. Teach and support staff have been trained in identifying, assessing and meeting needs, and we have developed national standards and guidance such as the autism toolbox and dyslexia toolkits to support them. That ensures that the educational psychologist's work is directed at the most vulnerable and at a time when psychological intervention can have the greatest impact. A partnership model based on needs means that, at each stage of intervention, children are provided with the most appropriate package of support that can be used to meet their needs. The profession has raised concern about the impact of the withdrawal of grant funding for the training of educational psychologists. The decision to reduce the funding of students on educational psychology courses was made as part of the 2011 spending review to bring it in line with standard postgraduate support. It must be stressed that it is a postgraduate course, of course. It is important to say that the minister—I understand that I have heard this reasoning from Mike Russell before about the postgraduate course—accepts that there is a strong vocational element to educational psychology. If you are going to have the same funding structure for dentists, doctors and nurses to go all the way through, a very similar funding structure should also take place for educational psychology. It does not stack up to compare to an MSc in art history or science when there is vocational qualification for teaching in our schools. It is important to say that the grant funding that was introduced was introduced in response to a staffing shortage in the sector in 1998. By 2011, it must be said that it was not evident in the same way. However, the Scottish budget was also facing real and significant long-term cuts in coming years, and very difficult decisions have had to be made around the prioritisation of spending. However, in recognition of the importance of ensuring appropriate numbers of educational psychologists being trained, the student fee loan support of £3,400 would be available for both years of the course. I must make some progress now, but this is the only postgraduate course on the prescribed course list where this is the case. Also from the academic year 2015-16, the MSc in educational psychology is one of a very small number of courses on a prescribed list from which eligible students are able to apply for a living cost loan of up to £4,500 a year. The national steering group will be interested, as will I, to see the findings of new work that is being done in this area. The removal of funding has had an impact, as I said, on the numbers that apply to study educational psychology. However, the number of applications before the removal of funding had reached comparatively very high levels in 2012 and 2011. The minister has not touched on that, but I am sure that he agrees with that. The crucial issue about the 70 per cent reduction in applications is that the social mix is wrong. Very few working-class kids are applying. That is the problem and the effect of removal of bursaries. Dr Allan? I entirely accept the argument that we must do everything that we can to ensure the social mix in our universities. That is why, for instance, the Government believes in free education for undergraduate courses. That is why we have been unambiguously behind that. I realise that time is running out here, but I want to say about the motion itself. I must make progress now. I am saddened by the suggestion and the motion that the quality of candidates training as educational psychologists has dropped, and it is more than a suggestion. To be offered a place on the MSc in educational psychology, applicants must demonstrate that they meet a prescribed standard. Once accepted on to the training, trainee educational psychologists must complete a very demanding and rigorous two-stage process to fully qualify. Those standards have not been compromised, and the movers of the motion and its supporters have offered no evidence in the debate for that claim in the motion. I also refute the suggestion that there has been a fall in the standards of assessment of additional support needs. I am very unclear on what basis and on what evidence that claim is made around the motion. Let me put this back in context by way of conclusion. I thank the speakers for taking part in the debate, which might at points not have seemed like a debate in the character of a member's debate, but it has been a very important debate about a subject that we all accept is crucial to the future of Scotland and Scotland's children. Again, I thank people for taking part in it. I think that we have made strides forward in this area. Through the work that we are doing, we are demonstrating our commitment to supporting the educational psychologist profession, to provide support to all of our children and young people, and particularly those with additional support needs. That concludes David Stewart's member's debate. I now suspend this meeting until 2 p.m.