Chamber and committees

Yes. PEF is very localised at the current time, because headteachers have the ultimate control over how it is spent. That has been a real positive of the way in which we have provided that funding. It has led to lots of creative interventions that I am pretty sure we would not have come up with in the Scottish Government and which I am not sure local government would have come up with, either.

PEF is employing an extra 3,000 staff in our schools, and they are not just teachers. I think that I mentioned that earlier. About 700 of them are teachers, but a number of other staff are also now employed in our schools, whether they are from the third sector, charities or other organisations. That is creating a completely different approach to supporting families and getting kids back into school post-pandemic. Where there have been challenges, other organisations—not traditional education organisations—are able to make those interventions and cross-links to bring families into schools.

I gave the example of family liaison officers earlier, but another example that I saw—I think that I have spoken about this in the chamber—involved a morning coffee group for mums in a primary school. They come in and have a cup of tea, and it is all about supporting their mental health. On the face of it, you might look at that and think that it is not an education intervention, but it absolutely is, because those mums are now engaged in coming into school, they know each other, there is a community around them, and it is supporting better attendance in the school.

Headteachers know their schools far better than I do and, often, better than their local authorities do, so they know how to target the spending. They will be learning from the way in which we evaluate and learn from SAC—I should say that that is a matter for the next Government. However, we do not want to lose the good work that has happened under PEF. The agenda of empowering headteachers that has flowed through the approach has been key to the success that we have seen so far.

In the budget, we have protected ASN spending. I spoke about the funding that we put in place last year, which has been replicated. That funding was targeted at specialist staff. My view was that it should be used for ASN teachers, but I do not want to direct. Some local authorities or headteachers might want to use it to employ extra speech and language therapists or extra pupil support assistants, for example. We have the second-highest level of pupil support assistants in our schools on record, which is to be welcomed. There are lots more staff in our schools now because of the protection of that budget line.

We will also look at how, through the local government allocation, we can protect funding for ASN. The latest figures on that are a little out of date—I think that they are from 2023-24. For the committee’s awareness, I point out that there will be updated figures. They are reported later in the year, for reasons that I still do not understand, but that will be before the end of this parliamentary session and will give the committee more up-to-date figures. However, the spend in relation to ASN was sitting at more than £1 billion.

That is making a difference. I am very keen, though—members will have heard this in my statement to Parliament last week, which I should say was largely informed by good cross-party working on the issue—that we make sure that the funding at national level gets into our classrooms where it is needed the most. Part of that is about ring fencing and protecting funding, but it also involves looking at how we deliver ASN in our schools and what that support looks like. There will be a tailored, short and sharp review, which the Opposition asked for and which I announced details of last week. That will be led by Janie McManus and will report before the end of this parliamentary session, which is really important.

We are also looking at the quality of data. We know that, nationally, more than 40 per cent of pupils now have an identified additional support need. When we delve into that, we find a much more complicated picture than that monolithic figure of 40 per cent might lead us to understand. We need to understand more. The figures show that those with social, behavioural and emotional issues are the largest group in the ASN measurement. We need to look again at definitions and how we target support to help provide teachers with the support that they need in schools. We also need to help provide the Government with better data on those issues, so that we can ensure that the funding that we are protecting at national level is actually meeting the needs of the pupils in our classrooms.

On the point about resourcing, I very much agree with Mr O’Kane. As the committee will recall, last year Audit Scotland published a report that talked about the issue in a lot more detail and about the lack of data that we have on ASN resourcing at a national and local level.

I would like to know that the £1 billion of spend that is going to ASN just now is going to our classrooms and is going into supporting the young people Ms Dunbar just spoke about, but we do not have clarity on that. We are undertaking a piece of work in that regard to follow the money, to ensure that the funding that I protected in the budget last year and again this year—the additional investment for ASN on top of that £1 billion—is making its way into classrooms, where it is needed most.

We also need to have creative conversations about how we resource our schools, because the ASN numbers are growing every year. It is important that we have an inclusive education system in Scotland, and I agree with Mr O’Kane’s points about resourcing, but this cannot be just about education. We must look more broadly at all the issues that Mr Mason raised in relation to cross-portfolio spend. We need to look at the role of health and the role of other parts of Government in that regard. That is why the work that John Wilson is taking forward, which looks at those issues in the round, will be fundamental, to my mind.

Janie McManus’s review is now under way. If Mr O’Kane and other committee members have firm views on the subject, I encourage them to meet Janie McManus to make known their views. As I mentioned in my statement last week, contact has been made with her to arrange a round-table discussion to ensure that she is cognisant of all members’ views on the topic. That ask came from a cross-party meeting that we had last year. I agree with Mr O’Kane in that regard.

Finally, I agree on the issue of extra resource, but from where in the budget should it come? The Government has set out its draft budget, but I have to ask that question. If they want more resource, I would like to hear from other parties where that should come from. We are putting in significant additionality in relation to ASN—we put in £1 billion in 2023-24, there is the extra funding that we have protected in the budget this year, and we have provided funding for pupil support assistants and for our specialist schools—but I do not see a credible path from any of the Opposition parties at the current time in relation to ASN. However, I am more than happy to consider that, because I agree with the points that Mr O’Kane has made.

Mr Briggs makes a really interesting point. I am conscious that Ms McManus has about 10 weeks to get her report to me, so I encourage Mr Briggs and others to engage with her directly on those points. I will take away the suggestion about engagement with health ministers, because I think that it is an important one.

To go back to one of the points that Mr Briggs made about the Morgan review, substantive action came from that review. Mr Briggs might not think that it goes far enough, but a number of different actions were identified through the ASL action plan, and we will provide an update on that—I think—before the end of the session. I see Alison Taylor confirming that. Part of that work was about better communication.

On the point that Mr Briggs made about the organisation in Kirkcaldy, very often, in my experience, parents are not aware of their rights. That is one of the reasons why we fund Enquire, which is a national parents advocacy service that gives advice and guidance to parents and carers in relation to ASN. We will continue that funding through the budget, but it is an important point in relation to the action that has been taken throughout the course of this session of Parliament.

I do not think that I am, convener.

Convener, I am sorry, but we are not going to have a diary conversation today. I would like to look at the correspondence first. It has not come to me, so please let me read it in the first instance and come back to you and, more importantly, get back to those stakeholders, because they should have received a response.

I think that it comes from equalities.

In relation to accreditation, as far as I am aware, that is being taken forward by Qualifications Scotland. I met Shirley Rogers recently, towards the end of last year, and will meet her again next week along with Nick Page, the new chief executive. I would be more than happy to write to the committee with more detail in relation to accreditation following my meeting with Shirley Rogers and Nick Page, because we discussed that issue at length with the committee during stage 2 amendments and in the chamber during stage 3.

I think that we had a routine engagement to catch up on a number of different areas, including the points that Mr Rennie raised this morning in relation to accreditation. I do not recall the discussion taking place in the kind of forum that you suggest. It would not be usual for me to seek a meeting with the chief executive on the back of a press interview. We have regular catch-ups. We had a regular catch-up on those issues, and we discussed them in the round.

I understand that those are also being taken forward. Jaxon Parish might want to speak about the work that officials have been supporting.