Yes—that was a very wide discussion; it was about data sharing across the whole of Government.

I turn to a somewhat different subject—types of initial destinations for young people leaving school. As I understand it, those are measured in October each year, roughly three months after young people have left school. Is that right? Should we be concerned about the types of destinations that young people are going to? Certainly, if we use the SIMD figures, we can see that there is quite a range from the bottom 20 per cent to the top 20 per cent. The obvious difference is that more of those from the top 20 per cent are going to university.

I am genuinely open minded about this. Can we be relaxed about that? Last week, we were discussing widening access—some young people go to college first and then to university, so statistics on initial destinations that are captured three months after young people have left school perhaps do not tell us the whole story.

On that point, as I understand it, the value of PEF in real terms has fallen by 16 per cent since 2017. Is that just because money has been tight, generally?

The word “fair” is always a difficult one. It is really based on the household circumstances now—is that right?

I might get ticked off for doing so, but I am tempted to widen out the discussion a wee bit. We recently spoke online to some young people, who felt that they had not been made aware at school of the range of destinations that are available. I take your point that there is a wider range of destinations, but do you think that all young people are aware of that?

The way that money has been allocated has changed over the years. It used to be about the nine challenge authorities, and now it is about 32 local authorities. I understand the reasons for that: Scottish index of multiple deprivation data is not perfect, which we have picked up in other evidence. Have you done any assessment of how it has affected those nine authorities, which lost a lot of money?

Do you accept the point that a poorer family in a richer area generally does better than a poorer family in a poor area, and that families in the poor areas therefore need more support?

I have to say that I am surprised by some of the lines of questioning so far, given that the committee is very keen that we see a big change and quickly. Presumably, even if the membership of the board is tweaked at stage 2, we would still need a core board and a chair. That will not change; the Educational Institute of Scotland will not take over the whole board like it wants to. Therefore, surely we can move ahead.

I have been trying to think of other examples to show that this process whereby legislation goes through the Parliament and the Government moves ahead in the meantime and appoints people on an interim basis is quite normal. The example that I thought of is the Scottish Fiscal Commission. I was on the Finance Committee when the legislation to establish the commission was going through the Parliament, and I think that people were in post before it passed.

Whatever the committee anticipates for the Education (Scotland) Bill—there might be major amendments and there might not be—we were in the same position when we legislated for the Fiscal Commission. As I said, I am surprised. I do not know whether the cabinet secretary is. It is quite normal for such things to go ahead in parallel.

Could you talk us through some of the figures and the percentages? I find them interesting, but I am not sure that I have fully got my head around them.

Paragraph 54 of the financial memorandum says that 31 per cent of

“referrals to community-based services were discharged before starting treatment”

and that of those

“79.3% (2,459) were discharged and recorded as treatment incomplete”

Various reasons are given for that. As I understand it, you hope to dig into the remaining 24 per cent of all treatment referrals and cut that percentage down. Is that broadly where you are going?

I accept that it is not a huge amount out of the total Scottish budget. Unfortunately, however, that is said about a lot of things. Our colleague Liz Smith wants children to be able to go to outdoor centres, which is an extremely good idea but would cost another £30 million or £40 million. All those things add up and, somehow, we have to prioritise. Assuming that the £28 million or £38 million would come from the health budget, is it your argument that the provisions in the bill should be a higher priority than, say, hip replacements? If people were to wait a bit longer for hip replacements, would that be okay because we would be putting the money into this?

I agree with all of that, and I am sure that the lead committee will be looking at that specific issue. However, we are looking at the money. You have said that I will disagree with your suggestion, but let us hear your suggestion as to where the £38 million will come from.