Chamber and committees

I would reflect on some of the points that the minister has made previously. When the funding was first introduced, it was a temporary funding agreement that was to last three years. When the minister and I came into post, we agreed to an extension for a further year to support our colleges, recognising the particular points that the member has made.

More broadly, not just in our colleges but across our education system post-pandemic, mental health will continue to be a challenge for our schools, for staff and for college and university students. We will continue to work with our colleges.

The minister spoke about some of the further work that is being done on the mental health action plan; he may wish to say more on that. Having had sight of his work on getting things into a better place, I know that that has been really important for delivery on the ground and for having a joined-up approach with NHS services. It is not just about education services, and we must have partnership working.

Mr Dey may wish to say more regarding the further education sector.

The cabinet secretary made mention of a number of portfolio areas in response to asks that have come from cabinet secretaries. I made specific asks around additional support needs.

As the committee knows, in recent times, there has been an increase in the number of pupils with additional support needs. The statistics that we published just before Christmas show that, at a national level, that figure now sits at more than 40 per cent. I am aware that, in some schools in Scotland, the figure sits at more than 50 per cent—

We have provided an uplift in the budget to meet the needs of real living wage costs for private, voluntary and independent staff, and I think that that has been welcomed.

Indeed, but that relies on Governments working together, and we need to be mindful of the fiscal context.

As the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, I can say that—

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.