Hello and welcome to the second meeting of the Education, Children and Young People Committee in 2023. Estefanie Calhan's MSP for today's meeting is here. I welcome Natalie Don's MSP who is attending the meeting in her place. The first item on our agenda today is evidence session on the budget scrutiny 2023-24. I welcome Shirley-Anne Somerville MSP, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, Claire Holly MSP, the Minister for Children and Young People, Stephen Pathurana, the director for lifelong learning and skills, Sam Anson, the deputy director for workforce infrastructure and digital, and finally Elinor Passmore, deputy director for early learning and child care from the Scottish Government. Thank you all for joining us this morning, and we will begin our formal meeting with a short opening statement from the cabinet secretary. Cabinet secretary, you have up to three minutes. Thank you. Thanks very much and good morning, convener. As the Deputy First Minister said when he set out the draft budget on the 15th of December, this budget is taking place in the most turbulent economic and financial context most people can remember. Inflation is at a 40-year high and we are all facing rising energy costs and many Scots are being impacted by the cost of living crisis. As you are aware, the Scottish Government itself is not immune from many of these rising costs. We had to undertake an emergency budget review in the autumn to free up resources to meet the increased cost of public sector pay and to provide further help to those most impacted by the cost of living crisis. We have not yet identified a full path to balance for 2022-23. That is meant that we have needed to make difficult choices as we have moved towards the new 23-24 financial year. However, through the draft budget, I am continuing to invest to ensure that Scotland is the best place to grow up and learn. We have made deliberate choices to tackle child poverty, to create a wellbeing economy and just transition to net zero and to ensure sustainability of first-class public services. For example, through £1 billion of funding each year, we are continuing to deliver the 1140 hours of high-quality early learning and childcare to all three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds. We have maintained our £200 million annual investment in the Scottish attainment challenge in order to increase the pace of progress when closing the poverty-related attainment gap. I have agreed that £50 million should be allocated to the whole family wellbeing fund, including preventative holistic family support. We are also investing £30 million for activities to keep the promise to our care-experienced children and young people. We are providing a further £80 million capital to support our expansion of free-school meals. That will allow us to fund our expansion of free-school meals for all primary six and seven pupils in receipt of the Scottish child payment, which is the next step in fulfilling our commitment to universal provision in primary schools. That allocation also provides support for the Scottish Funding Council and our colleges and universities to support the development of well-educated and highly-skilled individuals. That funding also supports the delivery of commitments contained within the national strategy for economic transformation and builds on the recommendations from the Funding Council's review of tertiary education and research. Importantly, given the current economic climate, we are also continuing to provide support for Skills Development Scotland, as well as funding a range of skills and training programmes. I am, of course, happy to take questions from the committee, but in closing, I would emphasise that our resources are not finite. Our finite, we have made difficult decisions and will have to continue to do so. We cannot fund everything that we may wish, either this year or in the future. While I am sure that committee members will have suggestions on where else we should put our funding for each increase in spend, we do, of course, need to make corresponding cuts. I am happy to hear those suggestions for increases, but I would also welcome and encourage members to suggest where any required reductions could be made. You alluded to in your opening statement about the turbulent economic context that we are facing and the emergency budget review in August that did not allow the full path to balance for the current year when your finite resources and the difficult decisions that you are making. Most public bodies under this portfolio will receive a flat cash settlement. So, how will those bodies be able to meet the additional costs in the coming year and also the ambitions that the Scottish Government is placing upon them? Is the Government giving advice on activities that it is not expecting from those bodies in 2023-24? We will work with every single public body and we will do so based on, of course, their priorities for the next year. We will all, regardless of whether it is core Government or within our public agencies, need to ensure that we are driving maximum efficiency and we are ensuring that we are spending our money as effectively as possible. Obviously, within Government we have sponsorship teams for every public body that will work with those public bodies to ensure that, yes, we are still delivering on our commitments as a Government but that we are doing so in the most effective manner possible. That will, of course, vary from public body to public body depending on their circumstances. It is also very important that we continue to encourage reform within our public bodies to ensure that we are making any changes as necessary to ensure that we are delivering the services again as effectively as efficiently as possible. There is encouragement of an overall reform process within Government to make sure that we are taking those decisions in the best possible way. It will, as I say, vary from public body to public body, but nowhere in Government is immune to the challenges of the budget that has been set and no one is going to be immune from having to take difficult decisions during that time. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I am sure that as we go through the session, some of those specific public bodies will be drilling into more detail on that. Can I move to questions from my colleague Ruth Maguire, please? Thank you, convener, and good morning to ministers and your officials. Convener, I would like to ask about early learning and childcare. Obviously, 1140 hours is really important for the economy as well as for children. We heard in our evidence and highlighted to ministers the issue about the differential between the public sector and PVI rates of pay. The public sector generally is offering better paying conditions to the skilled workforce there. When we raised this, we recommended a mapping exercise to see if there was movement between the two types of employers. I wondered if there was any update on that. I appreciate that it was maybe that we were going to get that in spring, and it is certainly not spring at the moment, so it is maybe too early for that, but I appreciate the cabinet secretary's reflection on that issue. Or perhaps the minister might be the best place to answer that one. Thank you, convener, and I thank Ruth Maguire for her question. She will be aware that we responded to the committee in the form of a letter to those specific asks following your inquiry on ELC and pay with conditions and asking us to perform that mapping exercise. Currently, there is no national data available on the movement of staff across the sector, so we have therefore asked that the triple IC, the Scottish Social Services Council, who is responsible for collecting relevant information to explore the possibility of providing some data on the movement of staff. It is not collected reliably across local authorities so that we could map the concerns that the committee had raised about the movement of staff with regard to pay. For the committee's information, it is really relevant that it is aware that the Scottish Government pays the highest average funding rates in the UK. The increase has increased by 57 per cent between 2017 and 2022, higher than Wales and higher than England by quite some way. When the expansion began in 2018, the expansion of early learning in childcare was put into context. About 80 per cent of staff employed by the PVI sector were paid less than the living wage. In contrast, our health check in 2021 indicated that 88 per cent of providers intended to pay the real living wage from August 2021. We have seen some considerable differences. It is also relevant for the committee to be aware that Scottish Government funding accounts for around 33 per cent to 45 per cent of the overall income for the private childcare services. As a mixed economy, there are business decisions to be made by the PVI sector in terms of their staffing. We work closely with the coslin of a work very intensively through the finance working group to ensure that almost £1 billion that we are investing in ELC in the next year is distributed fairly and that the PVI providers are paid a sustainable rate. That rate has gone up by 6.1 per cent on average over the course of this year. I hope that that gives the committee some assurance that we are certainly listening to your concerns and responding to that. Ruth Maguire Just to check, sorry, but it broke up a little bit there. Are we on track to have that scoping exercise by spring? Do you have any indication of when that information will be available? Yes, we are certainly engaging the SSS to see what possibility there is of having that scoping, mapping exercise. I am more than happy to write back to the committee with updates on that. Can we move to questions from Willie Rennie? I am just checking, Ruth, that you are okay. That is good. Willie Rennie, please. Sorry about that. Yes, it is on the same subject. I recognise all the figures about the pay rates and the real living wage, but it is the differential that is causing the challenge. We have all heard anecdotal evidence from private and voluntary sector nurseries about them losing staff, partly to council nurseries but also to other sectors, because they can get better jobs at a better paid elsewhere. That is reducing the capacity and having an impact on the flexibility, the choice that is supposed to be available through the 1140 hours. The minister is right that the private nurseries have other sources of income, but that is shrinking because the state contribution to their work is increasing. The ability to cross subsidise that happened previously is reducing an impact. I am really alarmed that we are going to be seeing a massive reduction in the capacity in the private sector, because we have an inbuilt two-tier pay system, which was designed from the very beginning. I know that this cannot be turned around overnight, because it is a significant sum of money. Is there a plan to try and bring the pay rates in the PVI sector in line with council nurseries so that people are not paid different wages for doing exactly the same job? The sustainable rates that local authorities pay have to take into account investment in staff, investment in training and paying the real living wage. We have influenced that sector in terms of its pay, and that is evidenced over the period in which we have had the expansion of funded DLC. That is evidenced in the pay rates that staff have been receiving who work in the PVI sector. We are currently carrying out another financial sustainability check. I believe that the survey went out this week or last week, so we will be in a position to report on that in spring this year and have a much more up-to-date picture of where both private voluntary and the independent sector are. Mr Denny talks about flexibility, and I draw his attention to the recently published parents survey. That was published just last month, and I appreciate that last month was a very busy month for us all. The outcome of that was that 88 per cent of parents of 35 euros and 92 per cent of eligible twos reported that they were satisfied with the flexibility offered to use their funders to meet families' needs. We have some evidence there that families are feeling that they are getting the flexibility that they need within that. 97 per cent overall said that they were satisfied with the quality of provision. It is a great tribute to the services that ELC is providing to our children and families. I do not know whether you want to add in anything else in terms of the pay differential or some of the work that we are doing with the PVI sector to help them to retain staff. That is exactly right. There are two main pieces of work that will report in the spring. One is the health check, which is looking at the overall financial sustainability of the sector. Secondly, we are undertaking a wider review of the rate setting process jointly with COSLA. We are collecting evidence for both of those issues. Obviously, the rate setting is really critical in terms of most of the money that goes out the door, both on the local authority and the PVI side for staff, so that will be critical. I think that Ms Hawley has covered the key points in terms of the trends that we are seeing. I think that the important point about that being a mixed model provision, and there is benefit in that, and the system is designed that way. PVI providers are seeing up to 40 per cent of their income coming from state funding, but they are obviously having to take their own business decisions about staff funding based on their private income as well. As Ms Hawley said, we will have really important up-to-date information that will be published, and we will provide an update to the committee in due course, that will give further assurance and information about the financial health of the sector, and on that really critical point about staff pay terms and conditions. The minister can't be happy—sorry, is this working?—the minister can't be happy that we pay workers two different pay rates for doing exactly the same job if they happen to be in a misfortunate position of working in a private sector nursery, they are paid much less than those in the council nursery. That can't be right, can it? As I said earlier, and as Eleanor said, this is a mixed economy, and the principles of funding follows the child means that parents are able to decide where they wish their child to receive early learning and childcare. We believe that the funding that we provide to local authorities through the funding agreement or the funding formula agreed with COSLA is enough to pay sustainable rates to PVI providers. It is between sustainable rates and fair rates, and it is just not fair, surely, that people get paid much less for doing exactly the same job. You can't accept that it's a satisfactory position. As a Government, what we can do is provide the funding for that to ensure that we can provide 1140 hours to all eligible children, which is what we do. It's a huge amount of money that is provided to local authorities to sustain and fulfil their statutory obligations to provide the 1140 hours of ELC. We say that, as I referenced in my earlier answer about the parents' survey, that parents are satisfied with that. We have seen an increase again in the last year of the number of children, the number of three and four-year-olds, the three to five-year-olds who are accessing early learning childcare is now up to 99 per cent. It is almost universal coverage. As a Government, our responsibility is to ensure that we fund those 1140 hours and that we allow local authorities to have the funding to pay sustainable rates to the PVI sector. When are we going to get to 100 per cent of the eligible two-year-olds accessing their provision now that we have sorted it out with the UK Government? I absolutely understand that this is an area that Mr Rennie and I have had correspondence on for quite some time. I was delighted that we got the data-sharing arrangements in place from, I think it was October, the legislation through the UK Government. We are working with local authorities and COSLA on helping them to make maximum use of that data, so we are hoping that they will be able to access that data by the end of this financial year. I am happy to talk through the process of how that would work if that would be helpful for them. In terms of those two-year-olds, the local authorities will get access to DWP data three times a year. It will be a limited amount of data that they are allowed to access. It will really only be the amount of data that they need to identify those families who would be eligible and it will give them the opportunity to write to those families to make them aware of that offer. Obviously, there will be other areas that will continue to publicise that offer through parent club, et cetera, and through Scottish Government channels, but that will give local authorities the opportunity to target those groups with that limited amount of information. They are only allowed to use that information for that specific purpose. Obviously, I will be happy to come back to the committee next year. We anticipate that there will be an increase, and there is funding within next year's financial settlement to be able to fund those eligible tos. The rate has gone up again. It has gone up to 14 per cent, but I appreciate that there may be more children out there whose parents are not aware of that offer. I am sure that I will come back to the committee on that. Carrying on the theme of early learning, the minister mentioned providing local authorities with huge and substantial funding to fulfil their statutory obligations. This week, it was reported—again, this may feed into what Mr Rennie was saying—that councils are only passing 20 per cent of the 1140 hours' funding on to the private nurseries, despite them providing 30 per cent of the childcare. I am really concerned with that discrepancy, especially when we are trying to talk about the pay differentials and being allowing those to be financially sustainable. Why is there that discrepancy? Why are local authorities top-slicing the money almost? I do not recognise what the convener is saying in terms of top-slicing. That was my terminology, but 20 per cent of the funding is only being passed to organisations that are providing 30 per cent of the childcare. I would have thought it would be more 30 in 30. Again, that is not a figure that I am familiar with, but if the convener wants to send me that source, I would certainly be happy to look at that. When you look at the funding that is provided from the Scottish Government to local authorities, it is quite simplistic to look at it as saying, well, there is £100, so you divide it by 100 children. Therefore, it is a pound each. I know that I am being very simplistic here. Local authorities from within that budget have to fund not only the ELC for PVI providers, but they also have additional costs. They have things such as property costs, including the repair and maintenance of buildings and settings. They have their own employee costs. PVIs have all of those costs as well. Local authorities and PVI providers are businesses, if I can put it like that. They have other sources of income. They have other staff, operational staff, head of centre and staff that do not count towards childcare ratios, additional support for learning, support services such as IT, finance procurement. There are also the cost of meals, which are paid to PVI providers over and above their sustainable rates. There are also the cost of meals for children who are accessing council nurseries. Within the current settlement for next year, there is also money for the deferrals policy change, which I am sure the committee is aware of, for the equity and excellence leads. Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide 1140 years. They can be providers of last resort areas where it is not financially sustainable for private services to provide childcare. They also have a duty for emergency responses, as they have been doing for children who have come from Ukraine. It is not as straightforward as 30 per cent equals 30 per cent of that budget. We have worked very closely with COSLA with local authorities through our financial working group to ensure that there is a fair and sustainable settlement for all of our ELC funding. I get a sense that local authorities are quite top-heavy in the people on the front line. Those early learning practitioners are the money that is not being transferred to them. Many of the things that you mentioned are overheads and costs that businesses face. Will the money not be best sent directly to parents so that they can then take the funding for their child and take it to the provider of their choice? When we were consulting on the expansion of 1140, one of the areas that the Scottish Government consulted on was on different models of support. For delivery of ELC, that happened between October 16 and January 17, including the model that the convener alluded to. The independent consultation analysis report that was published in March 2017 highlighted that the funding follows the child model was identified most frequently as the preferred model to best support the vision for high-quality ELC, which is accessible and affordable for all. We are seeing that in the figures that are coming out in terms of the number of children who are accessing funded ELC, but also in parent and carer satisfaction of the service and the quality that they are receiving and the flexibility. One final from me, if you do not mind committee. Ruth Maguire mentioned the importance of early learning in the economy. I am a representative for the Lothian region and we are quite a tight area in terms of lots of local authorities. People work across borders. There are very limited cross-border placements being facilitated. We did hear from our Gail and Butes who seem to be working really quite proactively in that way. Is there anything that the Government can do to facilitate that? We have so many people who do not work and live within their local authority areas. If I remember correctly, it was an issue that was raised in chamber, convener, but it was also an issue that was raised during the debate about funded ELC, and that is where funding follows the child is absolutely key. If there are particular areas in which I have let Eleanor come in in terms of the work that we have done, I would simply like those highlighted to me so that we can try and facilitate that working across boundaries. Eleanor, I would just see you looking at me like you want to come in here. It is not an issue that we hear widespread concerns about, but obviously in the Lothians it is a particular challenge. We would expect local authorities to work together to resolve those issues, but I am happy to look at that specific issue there and come back to committee, if that would be useful around what further work would be necessary. We are in regular contact with local authorities. We meet regularly with COSLA and every other month with representatives of the sector, and it has not been a major issue that has been raised with us recently. There is a sum of £145.5 million in the budget that supports local authorities to recruit and deploy additional staff. Last year, they received the same sum with a view to recruiting an additional 2,500 teachers, which, among other things, supported post-probationers into employment and 500 classroom assistants. I am not sure about the progress that has been made in the latter context, perhaps you can share that with us. However, the overall number of full-time equivalent teachers employed fell due to a significant drop in primary schools. Given that you presumably had a deal with local authorities around that, how can that be and how will you seek to ensure that councils fulfil their end of the agreement? I recognise that it ought to be the councils that we were putting on the spot on those issues, but you are here at the day cabinet secretary, so I wonder if you can outline for me. First of all, your view on the lack of progress on boosting teacher numbers, and what is going to be done to ensure that we get the additionality that is being sought and that the funding is being provided for? That is an area in which I am extremely concerned about the lack of progress on teacher numbers. As you mentioned, £145.5 million was based on the local government settlement because I had been told by local authorities that one of the main challenges to get from temporary to permanent contracts or, indeed, to increase teacher numbers was the fact that some of our funding had been on a temporary basis, and therefore local authorities were unwilling, quite understandably, to therefore move to permanent contracts for people. An agreement was reached with local authorities where we had an understanding within the Scottish Government, and I thought that we had an understanding with local government that that money was to assist with teacher numbers but also to see that move from temporary to permanent. Therefore, I was exceptionally disappointed when we saw no real improvement in the temporary to permanent and, indeed, a small decrease in the number of teachers. What I can do, what the Government can do on that, is in some ways quite limited because local authorities are the employers. I cannot instruct a local authority to employ a certain amount of teachers on a type of contract, but what I certainly would expect and what we are now moving into in very detailed discussions with local authorities for the forthcoming year is how the money that is given with an understanding that it would be paid for this is used to fulfil those requirements. There are meetings that will happen between myself and close of spokespeople to discuss this specific issue. I think that there is a genuine wish on all parties to see an improvement in the picture on that. I think that there is work that local authorities can and, indeed, should be doing to ensure that they are providing permanent contracts where at all possible. Now, HR responses will vary from local authority to local authority. They are the employer and they should have quite rightly the freedom to be able to do what they need to do within an HR and recruitment setting. I would hope that we have a general agreement that permanent contracts are better for teachers, and that makes the most sense. I would very much hope to see an improvement in that picture this year so that we can have an understanding and an agreement between ourselves and local authorities to deliver on the money that we have for that. The £145.5 million remains in the budget. We are providing greater flexibility to councils to use that funding, because I appreciate that there are recruitment and retention issues and challenges that they have, so we are trying to be as flexible as possible on that, but to be blunt, if we have an agreement at the start of the year that the money should be used for that, that is my expectation that that would happen. I am very keen to see whether we can reset that and see some shared understanding following on from the meetings that are going to take place on that. Tarnia was very careful with her use. She was like, I hope to see an improvement. I take it that you would expect to see progress being made in the coming year. I would expect to see the progress in the year that we are in, quite frankly, at the moment, given that we started off the year with a shared understanding about what that would be for. I would expect to see that progress again. I appreciate that teacher numbers are but one way that we can improve education, but I think that it is a very important way. With COSLA, I am more than happy to discuss the fact that there are a number of ways that we can improve education for children, and it is not just about teacher numbers, but teacher numbers are exceptionally important. If we start off with a shared understanding about what money is for, I expect it to be used in that fashion. I have one final question. In the interest of getting a fully balanced picture here, in the context of the ambition to recruit another 500 classroom assistants, what progress was made there? We have a growing trend about the identification of pupils with additional support needs, for example. Very often that is down to improved identification, which is to be welcomed. However, those classroom assistants, among other things, can provide support in mainstream settings. What progress is there to report on that? We have seen progress on that. You are quite right to point to the very important role that classroom assistants can play in the support of not just individual children, but in the learning that goes on within a classroom. There has been progress on that. I appreciate that there is more that we need to do, and there is an overall challenge to ensure that we are delivering what is required on the ground. However, I would also point on the ASN point that there is separate funding that goes in to support ASN, which is £15 million, to go particularly for that, to support the continuation of services and of employment in that area, and that is separate to the £145.5 million that we have discussed already. I do not expect you to have all the figures to hand today, but it would be useful for the committee to hear just what that progress has amounted to around the classroom assistants. I would certainly be interested to hear about how you monitor how that £15 million is used and what progress we see in that as well. Perhaps you can write back to the committee if that is okay. Michael Marra moved to questions from yourself. It is on the same theme, cabinet secretary, in the first instance around teacher numbers. There has been a large drop in the percentage of teacher induction scheme teachers who have a contract in the year following their probation. In the last year, that has dropped from 80 per cent to 70 per cent. If you could give us any account as to why you think that is. Clearly, what we have within Scotland is an understanding that there is a space for every individual who comes out of initial teacher education to be able to fill their probationary time, and that is very important. There is not a guarantee within the current system that we have that that leads to direct employment either with that local authority or with other local authorities. At that point, it becomes a matter for the local authority about whether they would continue the employment of that individual or whether that individual may wish to seek employment elsewhere. I note that the numbers are an area of concern. I think that there are a number of points around the types of contracts, the number of people who can move from initial teacher education through probationary year and on to particularly permanent contracts is a concern. Clearly, that is something that we keep a very close eye on when we are looking at workforce planning and the numbers that I will then go into initial teacher education in future years to see whether those numbers need to change to ensure that we are not creating a problem in the system. That is decisions that will need to be taken in the next few months for what happens with the next round of ITE to ensure that we are keeping all of that in mind, particularly those types of figures in mind when we see that the number of people we are putting into training and therefore their ability to get employment after they complete their training then complete their probationary year. 30 per cent is a large proportion, a very large proportion in the number of people being lost. We know that there are teacher jobs that are being advertised timing again across the country and that there are particular skills gaps. Perhaps it would be useful to hear from the cabinet secretary how those things map over in terms of the skills gap and whether there are particular problems and the supply we have here. I have pushed you on this before in the chamber and here, but meeting that target of getting back to the figures in 2007, getting those 3,500 additional staff in the door, making up on that gap, how many should we expect to see this year under this budget? Certainly, if I can deal with the geographical issue and the subjects issue because it is an area where I totally appreciate that we have parts of the country where people cannot get employment, particularly in some primary settings for some local authorities. However, we have other local authorities that are continuing to have to advertise and particularly for secondary subjects. Again, what we look at within initial teacher education is where the places are. Can we try to have more initial teacher education in other universities or in innovative ways so that it is not so central belt because that is sometimes where we see the challenges? What we can do to encourage people into, particularly STEM, but not just STEM. We have the bursary to encourage people to move into that. We are also doing work under the Logan review to see what we can do, particularly around computing. We have schemes to try to ensure that we are dealing with subject areas. That is a real challenge. It is a continuing challenge. It is a challenge not just in Scotland but elsewhere. We are very keen to learn from elsewhere about what more we might need to do to ensure that we are assisting with that. There is also an aspect that I think is very keen to work with local authorities on to see whether there is more that they can do in terms of incentives, because it may be that we have an overprovision of some skills within parts of the central belt. However, for very understandable reasons, a family being established, there is not a desire to move to other parts of the country and so on. Is there further incentive work that local authorities could do that might assist with that? We have some of that around some of our island communities, for example. It is already built in, but there is a discussion to be had about whether there is more that can be done and those discussions will continue with the professional associations on that. I hope that that deals with some of the issues that you raised there. We would expect to see progress, but we still have that absolute determination to fulfil that Government commitment that we have for the 3,500 additional teachers, 500 additional support staff by the end of the parliamentary term. Clarell, as I said to Graham Day, we have discussions with COSLA that are coming forward, where I will be discussing, particularly, that £145.5 million and what we can expect to be delivered. I would expect to see it now. I am not going to put a figure on that today because what we have attempted to do in the past is to ensure that we have an agreement with COSLA on those aspects. Clearly, we were not in a place where that worked last year, but I want to try and work with them, so we are pushing each other to see how far we can go. I am happy to come back on that once those discussions with COSLA has happened, because they are the recruiters. I could sit here and name a figure. We tried to do that last year with Bethel and the World, those that recruited the teachers then did not fulfil that agreement that we had. I think that it would be more useful to committee if we come back after we have had discussions with COSLA and we look to see where there is a shared understanding about where we might get to. I appreciate that. We are two years into a five-year term and we are not going forwards, we are going backwards, so we are 100 down on where we were. It is not really sensible to assume that that work can be done in the last year of a Parliament that we can deliver 3,500 teachers as a country. If there is no progress this year, we are in a really difficult situation, so it would be good to hear those. We have made progress. Teacher numbers are at a near record level. I appreciate that there was a small drop, I think, in 1992 last year. I appreciate the small drop, but the teacher numbers are at near record levels, particularly within primary teaching, but I appreciate that we have got long to go. Yes, there is a challenge to fulfil that target, but we have many challenging targets within Government, and we are certainly determined to deliver on that one, with the assistance of COSLA as the recruiters and employer. My last point was on this, regarding your other commitment around class contact time. I have seen one of those promises very contingent on the other. Without more teachers reducing class contact time as I identified in the OECD report, it is going to be incredibly difficult. Can you give us an update in terms of where those negotiations are at, what progress has been made on reducing class contact time? Those other matters for the SNCT are not a decision for Government. Government policy, though, was your commitment. It is, and I am going to explain some of the suggestions that Government took to the SNCT to see whether we could see progress on that. We had discussed, for example, with union and local Government colleagues whether we could introduce the reduction in class contact time in some areas before others. For example, it was easier and quicker for us to be able to do that within primary school settings than it was in secondary schools. Was it a way where we could deliver it in parts of the education system and those that are more challenging because of the numbers that we have to still recruit could be later? There was a perfectly acceptable point reached with local Government and unions that they did not want to go down that process, that they wanted to see that happen throughout education at the same time, totally except that they were not keen on the more flexible way that we had hoped to introduce it. Yes, you are absolutely right that the number of teachers and the reduction in class contact time are inextricably blight. We cannot do the one without the other. We will continue to work with the SNCT as we look to progress the numbers that we wish to see in this parliamentary term to allow us to put the class contact time. It depends on how others within the negotiating system want to see that delivered. They had a different view to the Government on that, so we will work with them to see how quickly we can get that through. Thank you very much. Stephen Kerr has a supplementary on the subject before we move on to questions from Crockabish. It has got to do with teachers and morale within the profession, and that is in the air that I have raised with you before, which is about violence and threat in the classroom. We both agree that it is utterly unacceptable that teachers should be subjected to any kind of maltreatment on the scale that we are seeing, 20,000 reported instance in the past year. I will ask you, in a letter that you wrote to me, you described the work of a group called Sagrabis. Maybe you could expand a little bit on exactly what Sagrabis is practically going to do to support our teachers, and when you are commenting on that, would you also agree that perhaps in terms of reported incidents of violence and threat in the classroom, we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg because there is no standard for reporting these incidents? Some local authorities are very hot on reporting these instances, and some, such as Glasgow, for example, reported only 400 instances. I say only, that is ridiculous to say only 400, but we know that given the scale of Glasgow Council and the scope of population and all of that, that that seems unrealistic. Would you agree that it would be good if there was a standard for reporting and perhaps even a mandated requirement for reporting incidents of violence and threat in the classroom? It is absolutely a shared understanding that this is an unacceptable situation that anyone who goes to work faces violence, intimidation, threats and so on. Our teachers have the right, as anyone does, to be able to go to work in safety and reassurance that, if anything happens, they will have the support of their employer. In many ways, the group, when I appreciate it, is not a title that trips off the tongue, but Sagrobus is the area where local authorities and national government come together and work with professional associations and others to ensure that we are looking at national guidance, different policies and what can be done. That group is specifically designed around taking forward proactive changes that may need to happen. There is a piece of research that has recently been started and has been delayed because of Covid to look at the extent of the issue, but, even without that, we all know that there are incidents in our classrooms that are unacceptable. Although research is very important, it does not get away from the fact that one incident is one too many, so the policies need to be in place. The points that you are raising around how local authorities deal with this and what more can be done are exactly what that group should look like. I am more than happy to provide further details about what happened at the last meeting of that, which was at the tail end of last year and what the plans are going forward for that. If Mr Kerr would like to further correspond on the issue, once he has seen that, we can perhaps take that forward. Thank you very much. Can we now move to some questions from Co-Cab Stewart, please, the Vice Commander? Good morning everyone. I am going to ask two parts. The first bit is going to be about the attainment challenge and the budget that will support that, and then I am going to come in after that with a question about Gaelic education. Going back to my first bit about the attainment challenge, you would expect me to be fully aware of how the poverty-related attainment gap and how stubborn that is and the fact that it covers many portfolio areas. Education gets the focus for closing that gap, so I am aware of that context. Funding that when it covers so many portfolio areas is a challenge, I understand that. I heard the cabinet secretary talk about the £100 million that is going to support closing that. I was pleased to see that there is a wee bit of a recovery, especially in primary, of going back to pre-pandemic levels, but we know that the progress could be better. We understand that and we know why it is so difficult. How is this budget going to support the continued attempts to close that very stubborn poverty-related attainment gap? How is the public going to be assured that all the money that the Government is spending quite rightly is getting value for money on that? How is that going to be monitored and tracked? The £200 million a year that is for the Scottish attainment challenge plays a very important role in that. The intention of that is to ensure that local authorities and schools directly through pupil equity funding receive the additional funding that can assist them to deliver progress. The ASO statistics have shown that we have seen some progress on that. We are not quite back to pre-pandemic levels of attainment, but we have seen some signs of recovery, which I think is positive. It is also important to raise that it is not just the attainment challenge funding that helps on that aspect as well. We had some discussion of that in chamber yesterday around the fact that the wider Government work on child poverty is also very important. The importance of trying to tackle poverty at its source through the Scottish child payment, for example, is key. The work that we are doing around the cost of the school day to try to assist with those aspects is important. When it comes to how the money is spent in the Scottish attainment challenge, clearly it is a significant sum that is going through that, and as you would expect, there are reporting mechanisms back. Schools are entitled to spend the PEP money as long as it is within the national guidance, as they think is right for their pupils, which is an important freedom to give to headteachers in an empowered system. Clearly there is an accountability for that money. Local authorities can also assist to ensure that schools are spending the money. They cannot dictate how the money is spent, but they can assist. If there is an underspend in developing within a particular school, it might be to suggest how that money can be best used. We have also got Education Scotland that can assist in that progress as well. When it comes to seeing the impact, I would refer to the NIF, which was published in December, to go through that. We have also got, just looking at the Scottish attainment challenge, an evaluation strategy for the Scottish attainment challenge as well, to look at how that money is being spent and to assist with the development of good practice to ensure that all headteachers are therefore aware about areas where Education Scotland feels that good practice could be shared, and perhaps programmes are directed in a different way or adapted within schools. Yes, there is an accountability for the money overall. Local authorities can play a part in that, but Education Scotland sits as well to ensure that we are evaluating and that we are assisting with good practice so that it is shared, so that the money is getting spent as wisely as we can. It might be helpful to know the tracking of that. Obviously there will be short impacts on stuff that can impact straight away, and then there will be medium and longer terms outcomes. How regularly do those check-ins happen with your Cabinet Secretary or the appropriate body? I realise that it might not be—I would not expect you to be involved in that level, but what is that process? Further to expand on the monitoring and the tracking of that. Given that this is a multi-year fund, you are quite right to point out that some of the effects of the fund may be short-term, but some of them will take a longer time to come to fruition. We have obviously got a multi-year evaluation strategy in place. We are looking at more frequent publications as part of the refreshed SAC and also looking to see what we can do in-year to evaluate rather than retrospectively evaluate what has already happened, so again, to assist at how the money is being spent rather than waiting until the money is spent in evaluating. Again, that is quite difficult because some of those aspects, particularly for some of the projects, are really quite intensive and can take a period of time to see that. I am sure that you will appreciate that from your own experience within schools. The other aspect, which is also very important, is a headteacher survey that asks headteachers whether they feel that a difference is being made. We have seen very positive feedback from those who have replied to that in the past. That gives us a good as guide as we can, again from those who take part in the survey, to demonstrate that headteachers themselves feel that the money is making a difference either on attainment or on wider health and wellbeing issues as well. That is another important part of a process where we try and check in regularly while being full aware that trying to turn this around, as Audit Scotland has recognised, and indeed the international council of education advisers recognise that it is an exceptionally complex issue and will take some time to deliver on. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The second point, as I said, was about the Gaelic language. Will there be additional funding to support the new Gaelic language plan when it is published in April 23? The Gaelic language plan is an important area that we have within the work. I think that one of the important areas is to recognise that it is not just about necessarily what is within the Gaelic budget within my portfolio but also how we use cross-governmental budgets and how we use what happens within government to be able to deliver on Gaelic language plans. The Gaelic budget that is set out within my portfolio has got a £1 million increase when compared to last year, but that is a capital increase to support Gaelic expansion. However, as I said, how we can improve the learning and, importantly, the use of Gaelic does not just sit within that portfolio spend, but, for example, the work that I share within the rapid rate of progress group with public agencies from SDS to councils to other public bodies right across government is how we can improve right across government. Although the Gaelic budget sits within my portfolio, there is a responsibility across government to deliver on the Gaelic language plan. I have been interested if you could detail a little bit more about the delivery plan for expansion of free school meals to primary 6 and 7. The current financial year is £30 million and the capital was allocated to that in the current financial year and there is £80 million allocated in the next financial year. First question is between the two. Do you believe that that is sufficient funding to achieve the capacity that would be required? How is the Scottish Government monitoring the deployment of the £30 million in the current year and the capacity expansion that has been achieved so far indicated to you whether or not the £80 million may indeed be sufficient or may not? That is an important part of our work to expand free school meals. Obviously, in Scotland, universal free school meals are available during the term time for now at the current point, 280,000 children in primaries 1 to 5 in special schools, as well as those that are eligible in primary 6 to secondary school. We estimate that just over 300,000 pupils will be eligible once we have the expansion of primary 6 and 7 aligned to the Scottish child payments. There is a good increase there that will benefit about 20,000 pupils across Scotland. We are working very carefully with COSLA to ensure that the money is spent, particularly how we can spend the £80 million that is in the budget this year—capital—to ensure that changes are being made to the school estate that will allow us to deliver on the expansion to SCP, but also with a mind that we want to move rapidly on to universal provision. That will vary from council to council. There are some councils that have greater challenges in school estate than others, so we need to work through with the councils about where we are at with that and how that money can be best spent. That work is continuing with councils around how best to spend particularly the £80 million, but I would hope that we can see significant progress and would anticipate us being able to move forward with the provision of free school meals for those in the P6 and 7 to SCP very quickly. Obviously, that can only be done once the changes are made within the school estate. I appreciate that it is not as simple as saying that the £30 million in the current financial year achieved x per cent of the capacity increase that is required and the £80 million will therefore achieve the remaining y per cent. Is there a way of quantifying what has been achieved with that £30 million? I recognise that that has been essentially done post-budget scrutiny rather than pre-budget scrutiny that we are here for this morning, but if we are to be confident that we are going to get value for money at the £80 million, it would be good to be able to quantify what has been achieved or is currently being achieved with that £30 million. I am happy to provide further information on the £30 million, because what I have with me today is the scrutiny for next year. However, when we are looking at how we can best spend that money, some schools will need quite a small amount to be able to get to the point of being able to deliver this. There might be other larger projects that particular schools need in particular settings. There is also a responsibility in Government to ensure that that money is being used as effectively as possible, because, as I said, the budget is finite. There will be a degree of challenge to local authorities to ensure that the money that is being spent is delivering what we want but at a reasonable cost. For example, are there other ways that schools could use their current school estate to make other changes to ensure that perhaps the initial capital cost that might be suggested by a local authority is not the only route that it can go down? As part of our process around the £80 million, as the committee would expect, that has happened around the money that has been spent as well, there will be that challenge. The Scottish Futures Trust plays an important role in assisting Government to be able to look at how we can best use that money to get the maximum effect out of it. Clearly, there may still need to be further work done to get us to the point of universal provision within primary schools, and we will have to deal with that within future budget years and come back to that. That degree of challenge is an important part of the process as we work collaboratively with local authorities to ensure that we are getting the most out of that money. You mentioned the interim expansion for P6 and 7 based on SEP eligibility. I think that it was 20,000 children who said that benefit. That is obviously fantastic news. Will that come from the start of the next school year in August or does that fall? Would you expect councils to be implementing that closer to the start of the financial year? We would hope that large capital projects are often best and easily done during a summer holiday period. We would hope that we could get into a position where we could have that for the start of the academic year. That may not be possible for all school projects, so there is obviously a caveat as we work through the details of that, but that is certainly the hope that we have. I think that everybody is keen to move forward with that as quickly as possible. Clearly, if there are a number of local authorities that could move forward with that but there is a small number of local authorities or indeed a small number of schools within different local authorities that might not have reached that, we would not want to see this whole project being held back in an introduction because there are potentially just a small proportion of schools that have not reached that capacity. We might look to see whether there are other avenues that we can go down to bring this in, so that is a long way of saying yes. We hope for the start of the academic year. Just finally, for making sure that we get as many of those 20,000 children as possible to take up the free school meal, recognising that there has always been a significant difference between eligibility and uptake, I presume that the most effective way of doing that is working with Social Security Scotland as those delivering the SEP to make sure that they are notifying those families as well as through the council, through the school, etc. How will you be making sure that all those families are aware that that is an opportunity that will now be available to them? I think that that is one of the areas that is exceptionally important is whether the best one in the world is not putting the scheme in if families do not know about it or are not encouraged to take it up. Whether it is the work that local authorities already do directly to encourage those that are eligible or work that we can do using Social Security Scotland, we have also obviously got parent club, which Ms Hawke referred to earlier on, which is a very important avenue of communication through the Scottish Government. We will look at every avenue that we can possibly do to ensure that people are aware of that and being encouraged and making it as simple as possible for people to be able to take part in that. That is a really important work that we can do with local authorities. There are many that are being very proactive about ensuring that families receive all entitlements, and we are very keen to assist them in any way through any of the agencies, including, obviously, Social Security Scotland. Thank you very much, convener. We are one third of the way through this Parliament in seven years on from when the First Minister gave the commitment on prioritising education, but I would argue that the improvement is marginal at best. I do not really want to trade stats, because we could be here all day, so let me be fair. I am always fair. On the attainment gap, the ASO figures show that, in the last five years, the attainment gap has been cut in literacy at primary, but it is less than 1 per cent improvement, whereas, if you look at secondary, at level 3, the gap has grown by almost 3 per cent. Are you satisfied with that situation? I am also quite happy to spend all day trading statistics with Willie Rennie. I am not sure that the rest of the committee might want that, but we can see where we get to. There is an understanding within Government that we wish to see more and see it quicker within that. I would certainly say that, pre-pandemic, there had been progress on closing the attainment gap not as quick as we would have liked, which is why we are looking to and now have refreshed the Scottish attainment challenge, the way in which that is being delivered and ensuring that that is being effective as possible. I think that, understandably, there was an impact on attainment during the pandemic, not just in Scotland but elsewhere, but what we are now saying is recovery. As I mentioned earlier, it is not back to where we were pre-pandemic levels, but when you look at what we are saying with the local authority stretch aims, there is an optimism within local authorities that progress can be made. We are not satisfied with where we are at, which is why we looked to refresh the Scottish attainment challenge to ensure that we are getting maximum use out of that billion-pound expenditure and to see that developed as quickly as possible and to accelerate that progress. An attempt to be fair to Willie Rennie in return, I appreciate that we need to see more progress on that. I think that I have always said that, but that is exactly why we have taken the decisions that we have to refresh that use of the billion pound to ensure that we are getting maximum value for it. What does substantially eliminate mean? We look at the NIF, and I know that we have had discussions in the past because you have challenged me quite rightly on the fact that I focus within primary schools rather on different measurements, but when you look at the NIF, there is the framework in there around measurements of the poverty-related attainment gap, and it is within those that we need to see a full change happening across that. Now there have been a number where we have seen an improvement, and a number where it has stayed the same. I am just trying to get a definition of what substantially eliminate means. We all thought before that you were going to abolish it completely, but now we understand that it has been refined and we could argue about how that developed. However, I am still unclear about how we know whether it has been substantially eliminated. Is there a number? Are you expecting the gap to reach a certain level, and that is what you would call substantially eliminating, or what is it? What is substantially eliminating? The first point that you will allow me to come back on is that there has been no change. We have always said that we would wish to close the attainment gap with substantial elimination by 2026, so that was the policy, and that remains the policy. So when we are looking at that, the reason that I start referring to the NIF is because you have quite rightly said in the past that you have focused on some measures, but you have not mentioned others, so I point to the number that is in the NIF about where we would want to see that. Will we get to a point where it is utterly eliminated, where I look at what is happening in the NIF and that there is zero on all of those? In reality, in an education system, that is exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, to achieve to get to a point of zero, but we are looking to ensure that we substantially eliminate that, to get that down as close to zero as possible. That may vary from measure to measure, because they are measuring very different aspects. If you will forgive me, I will not get drawn on what that number is, because there are, I think, 11 old measures in the NIF. We have included some more, so that will vary from measure to measure. What we are seeing just now is progress. What we are seeing now is recovery. We are not at the point of substantial elimination, but if—and I will use primary schools if Mr Rennie will forgive me for this one—if we were to see the stretch aims being delivered, that is a NIF, because they are a stretch aim and they are supposed to be exceptionally challenging, we would see the substantial elimination of the poverty-related detainment gap if that progress continues by 2026 in primary schools. That gives an example of how we can see a trajectory where that will happen, particularly within primary schools, but I appreciate that the trajectory within other areas is more challenging. This is focusing on the pace of reform. The Parliament voted in 2017 to get rid of the SQA in Education Scotland, so we are now going to get it in 2024, so seven years later. We are going to get, following the Stobart review and the OECD review, concerning the transition from the broad general education to the senior phase and the two-term dash, Lewis Hayward's report in May. Is that going to be a worked-up plan? Is it going to be ready to implement within this Parliament? How long is it going to take? There is a concern about generally the pace of reform. It feels very, very slow. I know that you could come up with an explanation as to why, but when we have a pretty drastic situation, as reported by the OECD, and pretty heavy criticism from the Stobart review, I think that there is an expectation that we move a bit faster, so I am just wondering what we are going to get in May and how quickly is it going to be implemented? Without attempting to pass this and not give you an answer, Professor Hayward is independent of Government, so what we get from the Professor Hayward review is up to Professor Hayward. She is clearly going through significant consultations with that. We did move the timeline for the Hayward review slightly, so her final report is in May, but that was to ensure that we completed the national discussion and allowed her to have the information for that, so that was the reason why that went back, I think, from maybe three months for that. Clearly, it very much depends when we are then looking at implementation what Professor Hayward comes up with. If she looks at minor changes, they can be done reasonably quickly. If she is looking at really substantial changes to that, that will take longer, and it will quite rightly take longer, because, for example, it may have implications for teacher workload, it may have implications for the number of teachers required to carry out things in the senior phase. I am genuinely not trying to be obtuse in this answer, but until I know what she is going to recommend, I am unable to say how long it will take for that to come into force. I am keen to see progress on that, because I think that the experience over Covid and some of the initial work that is coming out of Hayward demonstrates that there are different ways that we can measure success and attainment within schools than what we have currently, but, again, and genuinely until I see what she comes back with, I am unable to say how long that might take, because it could be quite a substantial and significant piece of work. We would have to clearly work with, particularly teachers, but not just teachers, about the implementation of that, because where those things can go wrong is not taken into account the implications for different parts of the system. The most obvious one is teacher workload. You can understand that I started off by talking about marginal improvement in the performance, and COCAB said that it could be better, which is maybe a more fair way of presenting it. Then we have quite a slow process of reform and uncertain about what happens after the Hayward review. In the childhood that started off school when Nicola Sturgeon made that promise back in 2016, we will have left by the time we see any potential real benefit. That cannot be satisfactory. Does that really give hope to young people that the Government is on their side? What I would point to is that, despite the way that it is often portrayed, there is a great deal of success happening within Scottish education. When you look at the number of qualifications that were received at the last results day, we saw near record highs. When you look at the positive destinations that young people are going into when they leave school, they are again at a near record high. It would be a very grave misinterpretation to say that there is not success within the education system, because the positive destinations would suggest that there is. As a result, the reforms were established because of a crisis, and we have not really seen the reforms happen. You cannot really claim credit for those items of improvement, and I recognise that they are improving. We set up the reforms in response to a very critical report, and nothing really much has happened. That is not good enough, is it? I would push back on the suggestion that the OECD suggested that Scottish education is in crisis, because that is not what the OECD report says. It is not what the international council of education advisers say either. There is a lot to commend Scottish education, and one of the aspects that has come round, particularly from the international council when I have discussed them, is to look to reform. However, what we are really looking at is continuous improvements. How do we challenge ourselves to learn the lessons of what has happened during Covid? How do we challenge ourselves to move to the next level, but not to get to a point where this is a reform process that is throwing out what happens in Scottish education? There is a lot of good that is happening in education, so I do not accept the premise of the question that the reform process was built in because we were in crisis, because I quite frankly do not recognise that from the recommendations of the OECD or the work that went in from the international council. What they point to, of course, is that we can improve. I do not think that there is any education system in Europe or elsewhere that should not be challenging itself to improve. That is exactly what the reform process is about. However, Scottish education is in good shape, as I think that particularly the information around exam results and positive destination shows, but are there ways that we can improve our system? Of course there are, and that is why the reform process was brought in. I am just going to one final question. If there is not a question, I have gone on. No, this is important, because the attainment gap is massive. It is an enormous gap, and we were slipping down the international rankings. That is why the OECD report was commissioned. There was a crisis, so it does sound incredibly complacent the way that you have just presented it. I will respond to that, because I think that it is very important. I will respond, given some feedback that I had when I was at a recent teaching conference. When a teacher put to me in a Q&A, why does everybody keep saying that there is so much wrong with Scottish education when what I see is an education system that is good and there are a lot of good things happening in it? With the greatest respect, I just genuinely do not think that the talk of an education system that is in crisis helps us to have the type of discussion that I would hope we could have, that the national discussion was all about, which was to ensure that, yes, we look at where we can improve, but we also take a little bit of time to celebrate the success, thanks to the hard work of our teachers and our support staff to be able to deliver for children and young people. We have three requests for supplementaries on the subject of reform, and I would like them all to be very concise with our questions. Michael Marra, first, please. Thanks, convener. Tests reported this week that you are budgeting £150 million additional expenditure on the educational institutions that are being reformed. At a time when there are front-line cuts, what value do you think we are going to get for that money? So, forgive me, I am not sure from Mr Marra's question whether you think I should be giving them more money or less. I think that that is asking what you think we are going to get for the money, I think that it is for you to justify the spend. Well, the spend that we have allows them to perform the important functions that they have, so, while I have made no secret about it and I have said very publicly that I wish to see a reform and that, obviously, we will move to a replacement for the SQE in Education Scotland, while, though agencies are in place, there are important functions for them to carry out. Additional money, 150 million pounds of additional expenditure over the coming years. Well, I do not recognise those figures, but what we have is an important piece of work that is going on yes within the SQE, yes within Education Scotland, but there is also, obviously, further funding for the reform package within Government to allow us to carry out that reform. So, when we are looking at the money for SQE and for Education Scotland, they clearly have to still carry out the tasks that they have and the functions that they have as we go through that process. Thank you very much. Bob Doris. Just briefly, convener, Mr Henry. Sorry, that is right, it was just a case new. Carry on. Mr Rennie was reasonably asking the timescale for the new reforms for the qualification framework. I understand that, but can I urge you to get those reforms right rather than rush them for an artificial deadline and then putting that request in? Can I note that Crickle for Excellence was first flowed to be the last Scottish executive in 2002? If the current Scottish executive would come in 2007, it still was not implemented. It took to 2010 to implement it in 2014 to get the related qualifications in place. So, can I appeal to the cabinet secretary, let's get this right, let's not rush it, because whatever we implement we will be living with for decades to come for Scottish children. Let's get it right and let's not have artificial deadlines. I take the point. I think it is important that we have deadlines to try and drive this forward, but what I hear very clearly from the system is a real need for us to look at how much change the system can cope with at once. There is clearly a lot of consultation that is on going at the moment around that has completed on the national discussion, which was an important aspect to then form an understanding of where Hayward and other parts of the reform process may wish to go, because there is no point in defining the way that we do qualifications and assessments before we have looked at what we want from Scottish education. The other aspect that I will hold very closely to is that I have absolutely no problem coming back and defending if something is going to take a little bit more time if that is because what I get as part of the reform process is not as radical a reform as I want. If there is material that comes back and I don't think it delivers on what I want to see, I will be upfront and say that we are going to take more time because this has to be genuine reform that we see within part of this, and I am not happy with some of the proposals. I think that it is better that I do that rather than accepting what I see for the first round of proposals knowing that they do not deliver the type of reform that I want. I think that there is a real urgency for us to get on with it, but I also need for us to do it in a timely manner and to bear in mind just how much is going on within the education system as we ask them to consult in the national discussion and the Hayward review and other parts as well. I am moving things on a bit conscious. We have a big section to come, but I have a very brief supplementary from Stephen Kerr before I move to Natalie Dawn, who is patiently waiting. There is a certain inconsistency between your answers to Willie Rennie and then calling for radical reform. It is a strange organisational setup that calls for radical reform when you are saying that there is nothing much broken. Going back to the Test Scotland article, there is an email quoted in the Freedom of Information Access request from Claire Hex, the Scottish Government's director of education reform, where she talks about the funding request for the delivery boards being, quote, born down on and reduced to the minimum viable. In that email, she also makes it clear that the Government's own education reform team is lean—nothing wrong with lean, by the way—but then she goes on to say that the Government is therefore having to rely on Education Scotland in the SQA prioritising activity to meet Minister's goals. Are we really saying that we are leaving the bulk of the workload on reforming Scotland's education system to Education Scotland in the SQA? Are you satisfied with that? What controls and direction is there around the delivery of education reform when it sees bodies that have failed, otherwise leaving it scrapped? Given the burden of carrying work out? You have asked me whether they are carrying out the reform work, and although they have an important role to play in it, no, they are not leading the reform work. Government officials are, and I am leading that reform process. I think that we went through yesterday. I am genuinely surprised that there seems to be a suggestion from some opposition members that we should have increased the budgets for SQA and Education Scotland to allow them to have more staff to be able to carry out some of that work. A lean delivery within Scottish Government and a real challenge to our agencies under difficult financial circumstances to take part in the reform process assists with that reform process, but that has to be done in a lean fashion as possible. In the meantime, of course, they will continue to get on with business as usual and the functions that they have to ensure that they continue to deliver. So, yes, it is challenging. There is no doubt that it is challenging, but there is an overall challenging budget settlement that will ensure that, yes, we are delivering on a number of commitments, but a reform package, again, I am glad that Mr Kerr said that lean is not a bad thing, because I think that that is what we need to do to get maximum value out of this. Sorry, Mr Kerr. I need to move on. I am very conscious of the time. You mentioned at the beginning, cabinet secretary, in your opening statement, obviously, that inflation is at a 40-year high. We are living through a severe cost of living crisis and there is a huge strain on family budgets just now, and the cost of the school day is just another aspect of that. In response to one of my colleagues, you mentioned progress relating to school meals. I was wondering if you could expand on how that budget will support the priority of reducing the cost of the school day for families. There are a number of different areas that will assist with the cost of the school day reducing. One of the important aspects is free school meals. As I mentioned earlier, with the move to SEP eligibility within primary six and sevens, we should then move to more than 300,000 children benefiting from free school meals within Scotland. That is a really important package that we have. There are other areas of work that we are looking to support. There is, of course, the school clothing grant, which we are ensuring that we are updating by the rate of inflation. Clearly, there is work that is also being done to ensure around core curriculum charges that we are again assisting children and young people, particularly their families, with the cost of the school day. There is clearly a lot of work that is done to overall ensure that schools and local authorities have a much greater awareness and an understanding about the implications of the school day costs and what they can do to assist with some of the ways in which families can be asked to contribute to certain aspects, albeit voluntary, over a year, which will still end up impacting on the budget of families. That can be a difficult one, because there are a range of things involved, and it can obviously stretch across different portfolios. I will move on again slightly. Within the report, we have seen a large increase in funding for the delivery of keeping the promise. I am just looking for the cabinet secretary or minister to elaborate on how that will support those ambitions contained within the promise for the 2023-24 budget year. The draft budget makes provision for £50 million to be invested in whole-family support, and that will continue the vital preventative work that we require to keep children at home, where that is the safest place for them to be. In addition to that, we will invest almost £30 million in other promise-related activities. That includes funding to support the promise Scotland and to invest in the promise partnership fund, and to take forward a variety of other actions that we committed to in keeping the promise implementation plan that was launched last March. That includes funds that are required to bring the children's care and justice bill into force. That was introduced in December 2022, and I believe that it is the committee that will be looking at that bill. I am sure that we will have further discussions on that and how that will fulfil the promise. Anything further, Natalie Dawn? No further questions, thank you, convener. Thank you very much. Can we move now to questions from Stephen Kerr? Cabinet secretary, what is your vision for the role that Scotland's colleges play in our education landscape and in the wider plan to transform and modernise our economy? Collegies have an exceptionally important role within our vision for our economy. Part of the priorities for the Government is around a move to net zero when colleges will be an exceptionally important part of that. Obviously, there is the work that is on-going on the purpose and principles, which set out not just for colleges but for tertiary education, where we want to develop a shared understanding and a vision for Scotland's tertiary education sector, colleges included. In summary, I expect a college sector that can deliver for the needs of our economy and society. Those will change over time as our economy and society does, and our college sector will have to change as part of that and respond to those needs and demands. It has shown itself to be an exceptionally flexible system and works very well with local employers. We are looking forward to future skills to ensure that they can deliver on that. For brevity, I will leave it there. You said that we can both agree that Scotland's colleges play an indispensable role in delivering the transformations that we are all seeking to see in our economic situation. Do you agree with that? It is therefore greatly concerning—I am sure that it is to me and others—that, in evidence given to the committee in relation to budgets—I am looking forward to the current budget—that the Glasgow-Kelvin College principal, Derek Smill, said that the impact of the funding looks at this early stage to be likely to mean a reduction in my workforce of 25 per cent by the end of year 5, 2027. He is looking at progressive reductions in his workforce by 2027. This morning, as if he knew that you were appearing before this committee, I do not know, John Vincent, the principal at Glasgow Clyde College, has sent an email out announcing that he will have to find £2 million of savings in the next financial year, and that there is a need for redundancies in opening up a voluntary redundancies scheme. That is not the backdrop that Scotland's colleges need to have, surely, if they are going to fulfil the indispensable role that we both agree that they are going to play in our economic transformation. Do you accept what I am saying to you in terms of what those college principals are saying? Does that kind of cut in their staffing teaching capacity? That surely is going to undermine the quality of the education that they can deliver. What I would point is the response from Collegy Scotland when the budget was announced when we had Andy Witty from Collegy Scotland say that today the Scottish Government has recognised the vital role of colleges in assisting in the economic recovery, elevating poverty and mitigating climate change, and he goes on to talk about the genuinely constructive discussions that Collegy Scotland and myself, Mr Hepburn and officials, have had on that. Clearly, when you look at the resource budget for 23.24, we see an increase of £26 million, so that demonstrates that, under very difficult financial circumstances, we are seeing a real commitment from the Government to support our colleges and, indeed, our universities. Yes, there are challenging times ahead for Scottish Government, for public agencies and for colleges, because those are difficult financial times that we are in. Despite that, we have been able to increase the net college sector resource budget, and that is because we do recognise that. When it comes to what happens in individual colleges, there are important aspects that colleges will be looking at around their budget. There may be changes that colleges will need to make in terms of curriculum and in terms of ensuring that they are delivering what they wish and need to deliver for the local economy. Collegies will take those decisions, but clearly what we have is an increase in the overall budget, and the Scottish Funding Council will then move forward with draft applications for colleges in March's final applications thereafter to allow them to be able to deliver with the increased budget that they are receiving from the Government. Do you accept that what colleges in Scotland have submitted to us is that they are predicting 1,500 job losses over the next five years because of the budget that you are praising? I do not think that they are praising it. I think that they are saying that it means cuts. How can you be satisfied with that? I would point to the section of my introductory remarks at the end. If you are suggesting, Mr Kerr, that we have not increased it by enough, please feel free to suggest how much it should be increased by when that money should come from. Within difficult financial circumstances, we have seen a real recognition of that within Government and our ability to increase the college's budget. If you do not feel that sufficient, I would be more than happy to know how much you think it should increase by when that money should come from. Mr Kerr, let the cabinet secretary respond, please. It is a clever response, but it is not based in any reality because you are the cabinet secretary, and you have to deliver programme for government based on your political priorities. What is clear is that the college sector does not number among those political priorities. That is what the sector reflects and the evidence that it brings to the committee. Let us talk about flexibilities for a moment, because the college sector is asking for some flexibilities that might allow them to use the resources that they have got to greater effect and perhaps some degree of relief in financial terms. Are you looking at flexibilities for the college sector? Yes. What are they? There are a number of areas in which College Scotland has suggested proposals, both for the current financial year that we are in and for moving forward. Between the Government and the funding council that allocates the expenditure, we are looking to ensure that there are increased flexibilities around the budget. For example, not being as direct about how budgets are spent to the same proportion, how can colleges get a little bit of flexibility, not about their entire budget but about a pretty substantial proportion of their budget? This is an area in which College Scotland and the Government have been working very well together to look at the flexibilities. We are very open to that. Mr Hepburns had a number of conversations. I have had those conversations with College Scotland. Officials have those conversations very frequently, as is the funding council. It is one of those areas in which we can assist colleges to be able to deliver in a really tight financial situation and give them the flexibility. There is no difference of opinion about the need for that within Government, the funding council or colleges, and we are all very keen to move forward with that. If that is brief, please. There are so many questions that arise from the evidence that you are giving this morning, and I do not have the time to ask all the questions. When will we hear the outcome of those talks that you are having around flexibilities, my first question? Second, when are we going to tighten up on the accuracy of the reporting on course completion and drop-out rates in colleges? Thirdly, when are you going to end the freeze on apprenticeship places? There is not a freeze on apprenticeship places. There is a lot in there, cabinet secretary. There is not a freeze on apprenticeship places. According to the Scottish Trading Federation, there is. We have went through that in great detail in the chamber and in writing about how there is not a freeze on apprenticeship places and for brevity I will leave it there, convener. The allocations, as I think I said earlier, draft allocations will come out in March, and if you will forgive me, I did not actually write down the second point when you were going through that list. Mr Kerr, if you would like to quickly remind me, I will go back. One was on the flexibilities, one was on the accuracy of the drop-outs. I pressed Jamie Hepburn about this and got a bit of a non-answer. When will we get accurate reports on drop-outs and some analysis of the drop-outs from them? They are pretty high in the region of 27%. I have a feeling that Mr Hepburn will have a different recollection and recollections may vary about whether that was a non-answer that Mr Hepburn gave or not. It is indeed in and you are entitled to it, Mr Kerr, as you always are. I am certain to ensure that Mr Hepburn will keep the committee updated on the collection of data as we move forward. Thank you very much. We are now very quickly moving on to Bob Dorris. Let's get back on a positive track, please. Thanks, convener. In relation to budget scrutiny, I met with the principal of Glasgow Kelvin College before Christmas to look at the really challenging realities of the then-budget allocation for the sector. I also met with DGS locally. I am in no doubt with those absolute challenges. They will mean less staff and they will mean less classes. Now, granted, that was before the very welcome £26 million addition that was added to the budget, which gives them very small real terms. I understand that there will still be less staff and less classes, and that will be reflected across the sector. I do not come with a pot of cash to make things better, Cabinet Secretary, but we have to be realistic about the reality out there. Is there any analysis of what the impact will be in the sector before the £26 million was allocated and after the £26 million was allocated? I think that the £26 million is a welcome addition to perhaps what the sector was anticipating before the budget was announced. There is a real role now for the funding council to work with Colleges Scotland and the different colleges to ensure that allocations are provided and to ensure that that is done in a way in which we can support colleges in the best way that we can. I do not, in any way, decryde the concerns from principles that this is an exceptionally tight time for them and that there are difficult decisions that colleges may need to take, but certainly what we have tried to do within the budget process is to increase the funding. That was not anticipated when we set the RSR out, but we have been able to do that. We will work very closely. The point around flexibilities is also a very important point, because colleges often say that they are hampered in their ability to take budgetary decisions because of the way that allocations are made and the funding settlement is. If we can assist colleges in that process by giving them more flexibility and allowing them to use funding in a more innovative way than perhaps our tighter controls in the past or more rigid controls, I should say, have given them, we are really keen to look at that and, as I said to Mr Kerr, that work is on-going. Within that, cabinet secretary, I am not sure that I know precisely that £26 million in particular is going to be used as the cash flows through to colleges, so if there is additional information provided by the committee, if not today, that would definitely be helpful. You also mentioned the resource spending review. Colleges are taking decisions based on a predicated five-year income, which was based on a flat cash settlement based on $20 to $23 prices all the way through to $26 to $27. In $23 to $24, we know that it is not flat cash. We know that it is now additional £26 million. When will the college sector get a revised five-year rolling idea of what the financing will look like for five years henceforth, because they are making decisions now based on a predicated five-year expenditure, because they lead in time to things like course changes or alterations of staff provision, be that the redundancies or recruitment is a very detailed thing to do. Can we see any more about how that £26 million changes the next five years for end resource spending review? For example, can colleges think that there will be a new baseline now? Certainly, in the context of how that money will be allocated, no decisions have been taken on that. Clearly, we are keen to assist the college sector with flexibility, as I have mentioned, and any need to transition their offer to ensure that they are providing the right curriculum and so forth. However, the funding council will be able to work with the college sector to provide those draft allocations. There has not been a decision on that and we will work closely with the funding council on ministerial direction and priorities of travel, but the allocations are for the funding council to make. We have seen an increase from the RSR. I would certainly hope that we can ensure that the college funding going into the future is maintained. Obviously, that is an issue that we need to come to year by year as we do for everything. The RSR is the long-term forecast that we have at the moment, and we are cognisant of the fact that a number of changes that colleges need to look at, whether it is design of curriculum, workforce requirements, etc., require them to have that long-term. The RSR is still the long-term forecast for budgets that we have. That is what we will work with the college sector on. College principals will welcome early clarity and some of that stuff, because they are making business plans of a five-year consequence now, so they would like some early clarity in relation to that. I also note, cabinet secretary, that I do not have any pleasure whatsoever in saying, I welcome additional cash for higher education, cabinet secretary. I do not have any pleasure in saying that it was less than colleges. It was a 2.5% cash increase. It was 3.8% for colleges, but I draw that distinction. Before that committee, I have mentioned that colleges do sometimes seem a poor relation to universities in terms of the reimbursement rates that they get for full-time equivalent courses at colleges and universities. The figures that we have are that for colleges it is £5,054 and universities £7,558. I am wondering if the differential between colleges and universities might be the start of a convergence over a long period of time to bring those fees more into a line of consciousness. The Circox funding council said that it had to better understand why that difference existed and that it would be different reimbursement rates for different courses. I would like more information on that. Just in case I do not get back in, convener, I want to add on that we should know that, in 2017-18, 26% of all university entrants came through an FE route, and 40% of undergraduates starting university in the last year from SIMD-20 backgrounds of university came through an FE route. What we do and invest in colleges matters for our universities, so surely moving towards parity of funding, is incredibly important. Have a crack at that. I know that Graeme Dey wants a supplementary on some of the earlier comments of Bob. We will let you answer, Mr Doris. In terms of the figures that I have seen about the different rates, there are very different sectors and they are funded in different ways. The ability for the college sector to seek other sources of funding is exceptionally different from universities. The comparisons are a bit too simplistic, but, as the funding council said, we need to understand better those figures. Obviously, I am happy for the funding council to continue to investigate that. As I said, the fact that we have been able to increase the college budget by the £26 million demonstrates the Government's awareness of the really important role that colleges have. Bob Doris is quite right to point out to the number of young people and, indeed, adult learners that use further education to then move on to university or complete higher education within the college sector. There are a number of ways that the college sector can deliver from some of the furthest away from the labour market all the way up to those who are taking a degree. I think that it is their flexibility, their determination to have an offer for many different demographics. It is a real testimony to their ability to innovate and to move forward with where the skills agenda needs to be going forward. It demonstrates their real willingness to perform in this area and they do so very well. Graham Day, brief supplementary, then we are moving to the next question. At the start today, cabinet secretary, you set the committee members a challenge, which was that if we were to suggest to you that you should spend more money on any aspect of education, we needed to tell you from where it came in. My colleague, Mr Kerr, was unable or unwilling to rise to that challenge when he talked about college supposities. Can I ask whether, at any stage during the budget process, any MSPs or parties having asked for more money in education made such suggestions to you? If they have, how do you assess those? There have not been suggestions about how money could be moved within portfolio or indeed across portfolio, but as committee is well aware, we are still going through the budget process and I would be more than willing to discuss some of those or receive them by correspondence. Conscious of Time, we are moving on to Willie Rennie now, please. So what planning have you done in the event that China invades Taiwan and that the results in a reduction of Chinese students coming to Scottish universities? If I can perhaps broaden that out from a very hypothetical situation to say that what we do need to look at is the assistance advice that can come from Government and the funding council on ensuring that universities who are independent of Government have policies in place to ensure that they are not at risk of one situation, and Mr Rennie refers to one adversely affecting them in a way that then would cause them difficulty. So all institutions are clearly required to look at risks that might happen. All universities are clearly aware of those situations such as Mr Rennie suggests and then implications for that. That of course varies very widely across the system that there are a number of universities that would not actually be that impacted by the situation that Mr Rennie suggests, but they would be impacted by other changes in international markets. That is really for individual institutions to look at how reliant they are on a particular segment of international students. I hope that we can all agree that encouraging international students to Scotland is a good thing. Within Mr Rennie's constituency we see fantastic diversity around international students and what that brings to both student and community life, but quite rightly institutions should look at whether they are over reliant on one particular part of the international student market and should be making changes if they feel there is a concern that they would be adversely affected by some of those situations. For the first time ever, the fees that come from international students for Scottish universities surpasses domestic fees. The exposure more than in the rest of the United Kingdom is substantial and the cross subsidy is not just with education but is with research as well. It is a realistic issue and it is something that you do not have to tell me now what the details of the discussions are, but China invading Taiwan is not an unrealistic prospect and we have large numbers of Chinese students here, so the threat is real and the threat is more than in the rest of the United Kingdom. I know that there is an international university higher education piece of work being getting done just now, it is under way, but I just want to know that you have considered this realistic threat and you have a plan for it. Well, certainly there is what the Government can do and then there is what institutions should do, but I can absolutely assure you that we are very cognisant of the risks that may come from, for example, a reduction in Chinese students. As I said, it really does very quite dramatically from institution to institution, so although— Point, isn't it? Some institutions are really exposed, whereas others maybe not, so the threat is even greater to some. Well, indeed, and that is exactly why the types of discussions that we will have will vary from institution, because although you have been understandably pointed to the difference between the rest of the United Kingdom, there is also great variation within Scotland. But clearly this is an area that you have mentioned, the work on international students that is already happening with the university sector and clearly those types of discussions are happening at all levels of government to ensure that everybody is aware and is sharing information about risks and ensuring that institutions are really cognisant of that. Again, because they are independent of government, the Government cannot and nor should we insist in changes, but I think that everybody is very alive to the points that you make within government and genuinely within the institutions as well. Okay, one final set of questions. It's about research. Scotland used to punch well above its weight. We still punch above our weight, but not as much as we used to, so we used to get 15 per cent of the UK research council funding. Now it's dropped to 12.5 per cent. Why has that happened? Well, the money that comes from the Scottish Government and we have ensured that the budget settlement that we have given allows that to be protected. There is research money that comes from outwith the Scottish Government from UK funding, which obviously is not for the Scottish Government to direct or to influence, but clearly we are keeping very close contact with universities so that we have an understanding of what we can do to support research. The fact that we have been able to in the last financial year uplift what the Scottish Government research funding was is a testimony to the fact that we are very keen to try and ensure that we protect very well respected research that is happening within universities. It doesn't seem that you understand why it's fallen. Why has it gone down? Well, there are areas that the Scottish Government can control and there are areas that we don't control. This is about the performance of Scottish universities. What's your analysis as to why it's gone from 15 per cent to 12.5 per cent of the UK research council funding? Why are we falling? Those are decisions that are taken by research. No, but what's your understanding of it? Those are decisions that are taken by the research councils and they will vary from year to year. Clearly we can do what we can with the Scottish Government research budget to ensure that we are supporting universities, but the decisions for university for UK-wide funding is clearly not for this Government to be able to influence or dictate, but we obviously keep a very close eye and have continuous discussions with the sector to see what can be done within government to improve it. I'm going to stop it there, but I am really concerned that you don't know why that's happened. We really performed well. This was the golden nugget and now it's dropping. You've not given me an explanation as to why, but I don't think that we're going to get one. Thank you for that closing question, Willie Rennie. With that, we would like to draw the formal part of the meeting to close. Thank you for your time today, cabinet secretary, minister and your team. The committee will move to its next item of business and we'll have a short suspension to allow our witnesses to leave. Our next item on the agenda is to consider two pieces of subordinate legislation. The first one is education, fees and student support, miscellaneous amendment Scotland, regulations 2022, SSI 2020-22, stroke 362. The second is St Mary's music school, aided places, Scotland amendment number two, regulations 2022, SSI 2022-377. Does anyone have any comments to make on the education, fees and student support amendment, Mr Kerr? Can I just ask a question about what the definition is of EU nationals' protected rights under the terms of the citizens rights agreements? Can I just make sure that I probably understand what that means? Can we have a short suspension to check that please? Thank you for just resuming after that short suspension. Given the questions that was presented by Mr Kerr, we will pause this and we will come back to this at another time. We will seek clarification on the questions that he has raised. Does anyone have any comments to make on the St Mary's music school, aided places, Scotland amendment? I am not moving a motion to null this amendment, because the specifics of it are harmless enough. I just want to put on the record that the Scottish Greens do not believe that it is good value for money for the public purse to be giving a million pounds a year to a private school when there are four state music schools in Scotland who would benefit greatly from that money. Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument? With the changes in what we have agreed in terms of the education fees and student support amendment, we will come back to that at another date. The public part of today's meeting is now an end, and we will consider our final agenda item in private.