Chamber and committees

You mentioned that Education Scotland will provide constructive challenge to local authorities. We all look for simple answers and for a uniform approach to be taken, because that can make things easier to measure. We need to have local variation, but we also need there to be challenge when things are not successful. Can you say a bit more about the actual mechanism for that?

What would that mean for a child in England?

I appreciate that you have already said that the proposed children’s care and justice bill is the place to properly sort this out, and I think that we all agree that the use of deprivation of liberty orders should be reduced to a bare minimum and that they should be used only in cases where they are absolutely essential.

This question follows on from what Ross Greer asked, and I ask it to have the issue clear in my mind. The status quo will not to stop cross-border placements from happening. Do you agree that it will not decelerate their use either?

I am a fairly new member of the committee, so could you be a bit more specific about that challenge? Who provides the challenge? What is the forum? Where does it happen? Does it happen within the regional improvement collaboratives? What does it look like?

As well as parliamentary scrutiny, scrutiny from local authority politicians is important. As you said, this is not just about the Government; it is also about local authorities.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. My questions are about variation and the role of local authorities. You covered quite a bit of that in your discussion with the convener about the role of local authorities in the revised approach. Obviously, all 32 local authorities are now getting multiyear funding. What duties are being placed on local authorities to ensure accountability?

Colleagues have probably covered the areas that I was thinking about. I wanted to ask about the policy intention and advocacy. I am feeling a bit confused. I care about all children in all countries, but there is an issue about how we influence what is happening in England if the standards are not being met there. With the best will in the world, if we do not make the changes that are in the regulations, children will still be placed here. The proposed changes include the addition of the advocate so that the child’s rights are better supported and their voice can be heard.

This might be a silly question, but I am going to ask it, because it feels like an important topic. How will amending the regulations help the practice in England, which you are saying does not seem to be rights based? Can you lay that out for me so that I can understand it?

I will, but Labour does insist on these short debates, so—

I will vote for the Government’s amendment, which lays out the work that needs to be done to tackle the poverty-related attainment gap.

The local authority is working on how the programmes will work. The fact that the multiyear allocations are being confirmed over a four-year period will be welcome, and that will assist all local authorities to plan for the long term.

Addressing the poverty-related attainment gap is about more than what goes on in the classroom. The actions that the Scottish Government has set out are putting money in the pockets of families now, helping to tackle the cost of living crisis, setting a course for sustainable reductions in child poverty by 2030, and expanding access to free school meals, so that children can feel the benefits of nutritious cooked food during the week. School uniforms place a significant pressure on families, which is why the Scottish Government has increased the national school clothing grant. The newly doubled Scottish child payment, together with the three best start grant payments and best start foods, will be worth more than £10,000 by the time a family’s first child turns six, and £9,700 for second and subsequent children.

I know that Opposition colleagues do not like comparisons with our friends and neighbours over the border, but that difference is more than £8,200 for every eligible child born in Scotland in comparison with England and Wales. That does not make things better for people experiencing poverty here, but it provides context to politicians.

As a member of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, I take my role and responsibilities very seriously. Only a matter of hours ago, the committee completed the last evidence session in our inquiry into the Scottish attainment challenge, and we have not yet begun work on our cross-party report. For that reason, I feel compelled to note that I find the Labour motion today disappointing and perhaps even a bit disrespectful of that work, part of which involved outreach to hear directly from parents and teachers about their experience of the Scottish attainment challenge.

Those parents and teachers shared with us things that worked, and we heard first-hand testimony of caring, diligent professionalism and practice that reflected knowledge of their pupils, families and children and meant that support was delivered in a dignified way. I am mindful in particular of the words of one headteacher, who told us that the discourse around education was rarely about what happened in the classroom and more often about political point scoring and headline grabbing elsewhere. In my remarks today, I will endeavour not to add to that unhelpful noise.

The area that I represent has a lot going for it, but it faces severe economic challenges, and no one in my position would welcome a reduction in the funding to address the impact of those challenges. However, it is important to look at the facts of the matter. The Scottish Government decision to change the approach of the Scottish attainment challenge fund was backed by local authorities and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities leaders, and it ensures that the redistributed funding allocations recognise that poverty exists in all parts of Scotland. It is an inescapable fact that there is poverty all over Scotland, and I understand the rationale behind wanting to ensure that the 59 per cent of children in relative poverty who reside outwith the nine challenge authorities receive a fair share of resource.