Chamber and committees

I thank the member for her question. As she has intimated, the four-year settlement for PEF is hugely important, as it gives headteachers certainty in planning—for example, in hiring staff. It is important to recognise that that additionality has helped us to make progress in closing the poverty-related attainment gap.

In relation to the teachers’ settlement deal, it is not my understanding that PEF was reprofiled as part of that arrangement, but I would defer to officials on that, because I was not in post at that time. I have not seen the evidence to which you allude, but, more generally, it is my understanding, as cabinet secretary, that PEF absolutely remains a focus of the Government in terms of the delivery model and will remain on a four-year basis until the end of the cycle.

I can understand what Mr Rennie has outlined, but I do not agree with it. He has suggested that I can enforce in our college sector the policy of having no compulsory redundancies. That power is not currently at my disposal.

I hear the concern that has been expressed on the broader matter of transition funding. As Ms Somerville will have done when she was before the committee—she might have also done so in the chamber—I ask Mr Rennie to say where else in the Scottish Government’s budget that funding should have come from. At the time, it was made clear to the teaching unions that it would have to come from the education budget; that was part of the settlement that was agreed with our teachers. The suggestion is that we should find additional money for college lecturers. From where in the education budget should I take that funding?

Undoubtedly, inflationary pressures are having an impact on our budget, as I alluded to in my answer to Mr Kerr. Mr Kerr did not think that it was an answer, but I attempted to provide a response. Our money is not going as far as it used to, and I think that members around the table accept that.

Scotland has more generous free school meal provision than any other part of the UK. The next phase of that is expansion to primaries 6 and 7, starting with children whose families receive the Scottish child payment. Inflationary pressures are being felt in relation to decisions taken elsewhere. I am not going to make political points, but we are doing everything that we can to mitigate those pressures. As the member will know, free school meals provision is a manifesto commitment. Quite aside from that, it is the right thing to do.

In my view, the policy will help to improve attainment and how children engage in the education system. Some evidence suggests that it can even help to stymie childhood obesity.

There are lots of good reasons why we should invest in free school meals. Rising food costs are impacting families across Scotland. We provide £169 million a year to support universal free school meal provision in primaries 1 to 5, as well as for the roll-out for primary 6 pupils to those who are eligible in secondary 6. We continue to support that policy. It will be challenging, but there is a commitment to deliver it and I assure the committee that we are working towards it.

I am happy to write to the committee—or to ask Mr Dey to do so—in answer to Ms Thomson’s question and to share with you a bit more about the progress that has been made as well as the specifics that have been raised.

It is not my understanding that there is new money in the education budget to look at how this will work. We need to look at what we are currently spending, which is significant, and ensure that that funding works more effectively for our young people.

No, convener, but I am aware that that power is at my disposal. I would defer to my officials on precisely how we would go about doing that work. The mechanism has existed previously. However, it is not one that I would want to enact. Going back to Ms Maguire’s line of questioning, I add that I do not want to be in that position; I want to be able to trust our local authorities to deliver at that level, where our schools are run.

Going back to Ms Thomson’s point about the new deal and the Verity house agreement, I note that that is where we should be. If additionality is provided by central Government but it is not used for teacher numbers, the question that I have is what it is being used for. That would be challenging for me to defend as cabinet secretary. There are risks on both sides.

For the committee’s awareness, I highlight that the practicalities include our looking to build school kitchens. The Government is providing huge capital investment. When I was first appointed, I did not appreciate the fact that a number of our schools do not have the capital provision in their school estate to deliver free school meals, so we need to put that in place, which takes time.

That is the measure that we have used for allocations for a number of years. We have, in the past, used it in relation to eligibility for other things as well. In the future, given that we are moving towards universality at primary school level, we will have to consider a different model. Universality necessitates a shift away from it. I am not going to argue about whether it is the best way to measure it. It is the measure that we have used, but we will have to use a different one in the future. The approach will look different because of the universal approach in primary schools.

Good morning. I am delighted to be here in my first appearance as cabinet secretary at the Education, Children and Young People Committee. I thank you for the invitation—it is nice to be back, although I am sitting in a different chair from when I was last at the committee.

I look forward very much to working constructively with members of the committee. I have met Opposition leads over the past few months, and I look forward to continued engagement with the committee.

I will start by stating the obvious. Some, although not all, of our schools are closed today as a result of industrial action. Although the workers who are involved are local government employees and it is not an education dispute, it would be remiss of me not to mention the impact that school closures have already had, and continue to have, on education this week. Although I respect the fact that the matter remains a negotiation between local authorities and unions, I recognise that the people who are involved are continuing negotiations in the hope that a resolution can be found swiftly. Although I am not involved in negotiations, I have been working closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to ensure that disruption to learning and teaching as a result of industrial action is minimised.

The clear expectation from the Scottish Government and COSLA is that schools will be closed only when it is safe or practicable not to open them. The educational needs of our young people must continue to be met locally, where our schools are closed.

I am grateful to the committee for its inquiry into the Scottish attainment challenge and the comprehensive report that it published in August last year. The Government’s response was equally comprehensive, and we share a focus on improving outcomes for children and young people who are experiencing poverty.

Progress is being made. The poverty-related attainment gap remains narrower than it was pre-pandemic for national 5s, highers and advanced highers. We have seen good progress in primary school literacy and numeracy, and a record low gap in respect of positive destinations for school leavers nine months after leaving school.

All of that, along with the ambitious aims that local authorities have set and are setting for the longer term, gives me confidence that our £1 billion investment in the Scottish attainment challenge is having an impact.

At the same time, we all acknowledge the impacts of the pandemic and the current cost of living crisis, which have deepened inequality.

The Government is maintaining our commitment to a relentless focus on closing the poverty-related attainment gap and on working closely with our councils, while recognising their responsibilities.

I understand that the committee would welcome an update on the relationships and behaviour summits. In June, I convened a headteachers task force to consider school exclusions. As I explained in my letter to the committee in August, there are multiple strands to the summits, with events in September, October and November. That ensures engagement with a wide range of stakeholders and enables the summit process to be informed by the evidence from the behaviour in Scottish schools research, which we will publish in November. I chaired the summit in September on recording and monitoring incidents in schools, and I look forward to engaging in future summits. To that end, I will continue to keep the committee updated.

There is much to be positive about in Scottish education. We have the lowest pupil teacher ratio, the highest spend per pupil and the best-paid teachers in the United Kingdom. We continue to celebrate and support free tuition in higher education, and this year’s exam results have shown continued progress in closing the poverty-related attainment gap.

There are always opportunities to improve—I accept that—but the way in which we, as politicians, engage with the substantive issues of the day in education is, arguably, not like our engagement with any other policy area in Government. As the committee will know, I was a teacher before I was a politician, and the actions that I take as cabinet secretary will undoubtedly be informed by my experience at the chalkface.

I believe that this committee has one of the most important roles in the Scottish Parliament—not only in holding the Government to account, but in driving the improvements that we need in our education system. That is what will improve outcomes for our young people, so I am committed to working with the committee on that endeavour.

I thank you for having me along this morning, convener. I am happy to take any questions.

This situation is different. The way in which teachers are paid is different from how those in our college sector are paid. The Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers has a key role to play in the tripartite arrangements on teachers’ pay. The college sector has always been different. If Mr Rennie’s argument is that we should establish an SNCT approach to the college sector, I would like to hear it. There would be real challenges in doing so.

The challenges in the college sector predate my time in office and go back a number of years. It is important that we work with our trade union partners on establishing positive working relationships. I recently met representatives of the Educational Institute of Scotland and I have also met those from College Employers Scotland. I know that Mr Dey continues to engage with our trade unions.

I recognise the concern here, but it is important that we get to a settlement. That is a matter for College Employers Scotland to deliver on; it is not for ministers to intervene in.