Chamber and committees

You are right to say that there is no capital allocation for free school meals in next year’s budget—that is because the capital allocation for free school meals roll-out for those in P6 and P7 who are in receipt of the Scottish child payment has been baked into the current year’s financial settlement, so there is no need for that capital in the next financial year. The funding that we have provided in next year’s budget, which we are speaking about today, is for resource, and it is an uplift of £50 million. That is the reason why it does not appear in the budget itself.

The committee will be well aware of the Government’s commitment to universality and to working towards that, and of the financial challenges that we have faced in that regard. We task the Scottish Futures Trust with providing the Government with independent forecasts for what universality might cost. I think that the costings, when I last considered them, were just over £250 million, which I did not have in my budget. We have therefore taken an approach to target free school meals provision at those who are most in need.

It is worth noting that Scotland is the only part of the UK that continues to make some provision for free school meals across the school holidays, which is important. That funding goes directly to local authorities.

The challenges to achieving free school meals universality have largely been financial. I think that the committee knows that—we have certainly discussed it in the chamber at length. It remains our aspiration, subject to financial agreement from elsewhere, that we will continue with our progress on universality.

I should put on record that some parts of the country, such as Inverclyde Council, currently provide universal free school meals. The Government also provides free school meals to those who qualify for them right up to the end of secondary 6. That capital provision is not made in the next financial year because it is not required.

Universality remains our aspiration, and we know that that investment, although it is not currently where we would like it to be, is making a real difference. It is helping to save families, on average, £400 per child per year, so it is a worthwhile investment, and we will continue to work with local authorities on universal roll-out.

Mr Greer and I have had an exchange on that issue in the chamber, and I think that I have agreed to visit the said primary school with him.

I do not think that that is the case.

Of course it is, but we are—

As I outlined in response to Pam Duncan-Glancy, we are making progress, which is shown by the achievement of curriculum for excellence levels data that was published in December.

I would like us to be making more progress but, undoubtedly, a number of challenges have disrupted progress. Not least of those was the pandemic. We might come on to talk about that later. There are real challenges in our schools post-pandemic because—to be blunt—young people were out of formal education for the best part of two years. That is borne out in attendance statistics: some young people are really struggling to get back into formal education. It is also borne out in attainment. We need to be mindful of that.

However, we need to look again at how we can drive improvements in our schools. Just before Christmas, in a statement in the chamber, I provided an update on the national improvement framework and how that work will push forward some of the improvements that are needed in our schools. Subject to agreement on Parliamentary business, I also plan to bring forward another debate and to make a statement to identify some of the actions that we will take on improvement.

However, I will also reflect on a point that, I think, Jackie Dunbar made. Some of the work on the attainment challenge goes back to 2015 and 2016—nearly 10 years ago. When the funding was first envisaged, we would not necessarily have thought that headteachers would use it to pay for free breakfasts or similar interventions. What we have seen in our schools is the impact of austerity over the past decade. That funding, which was meant to be additional to budgets, has now become central to how we fund our schools because of the erosion of some services as a result of austerity policies. Schools are having to fill the gaps.

I have been open and honest about that. It is undoubtedly having an impact on how we make progress in closing the gap. However, progress is being made. I would like more progress to be made, which is why we have introduced the national improvement framework update.

Members might be aware that there was some commentary on maths and numeracy over the recess period. That issue is why, last year, we appointed the first national numeracy specialist, who is a former maths teacher and headteacher. They are leading on that improvement work. It is also why we have a radical approach to school education reform, which is part of the answer to closing the poverty-related attainment gap.

However, I go back to the convener’s point at the start of the evidence session: this is not all about education, and we must not narrowly think about it in that way—if we do, we will lose the opportunity of other funding streams. Further action that the Government is taking—for example, on mitigating the two-child cap—is fundamental to closing the poverty-related attainment gap. Additionally, the Scottish child payment helps to lift more children out of poverty. All such policies need to be brought together, which is why the convener’s opening question about having a cross-Government approach to eradicating child poverty was such a salient point, and it relates to your point about closing the poverty-related attainment gap.

I do agree. I was in the chamber and heard the exchange that you have cited. The budget sets out more than £656 million in the next financial year to support colleges’ delivery of high-quality education and skills. The college sector is a hugely strong part of Scotland’s education system and offers a breadth of opportunity that other parts of that system do not necessarily offer. It makes a really strong offer.

Regarding the budget settlement, the 2025-26 budget sees a £13.2 million uplift in the net college resource allocation. If we include the non-profit-distributing budget allocation uplift of £2.3 million, there is a total college resource uplift of 2.3 per cent compared to the previous year’s budget, so we have seen an increase in college resource spending. I also place on record the real strength of the college sector. I see much of that in my job as cabinet secretary, and the minister also engages regularly with the college sector.

Are you suggesting that the Government review its policy on free tuition? If so, that is not a position that we will be able to support.

Yes, although you will understand, convener, that I am not the cabinet secretary with responsibility for driving those plans—that is Ms Somerville.

For reasons of transparency about our progress in that regard, that is an issue that we would wish to share with the committee and with Parliament.

Mr Rennick may wish to say something.

We met with the sector in late November, ahead of the budget, to hear from it, and that was a direct ask from it, and that has been publicised in the press.

That has come from the sector, and we have responded. It is not just the places, because additionality has been provided to reach that 3.5 per cent number.