Official Report 818KB pdf
Recognition of Overseas Qualifications (Charges) (Scotland) Regulations 2025 (SSI 2025/67)
Good morning, and welcome to the 12th meeting in 2025 of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. We have received apologies from Ross Greer, and Clare Haughey is attending as a substitute member.
The first item on the agenda is consideration of a piece of subordinate legislation under the negative procedure. If members have no comments to make on the instrument, I will just highlight yesterday’s note by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which, as members will have seen, alerts this committee to a particular item.
Do members agree that this committee does not wish to make any recommendation in relation to the instrument, other than that noted by the DPLR Committee?
Members indicated agreement.
Social Security Information-sharing (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2025 [Draft]
The next item on our agenda is consideration of a piece of subordinate legislation subject to the affirmative procedure. The committee will take evidence on the instrument from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and her officials, and the cabinet secretary will then move the motion to approve it.
I welcome to the meeting Jenny Gilruth, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills; Alison Taylor, deputy director for improvement, attainment and wellbeing; Laura Meikle, head of the support and wellbeing unit; and Nico McKenzie-Juetten, a lawyer at the Scottish Government legal directorate.
I invite the cabinet secretary to speak to the draft instrument.
Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to discuss the draft Social Security Information-sharing (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2025.
The regulations will, if approved, establish a legal gateway for the sharing of certain data between Social Security Scotland and Scottish local authorities, for the purposes of providing free school meals to pupils in primary 6 and 7 whose families are in receipt of the Scottish child payment and of providing certain data to support the test of change in secondary 1 to secondary 3 on the basis of being in receipt of Scottish child payment. That step is essential in supporting local authorities to maximise uptake in the next phase of delivery of the free school meals programme to those in receipt of SCP in primaries 6 and 7.
For members’ clarity, the information that would be shared will be: the child’s name; the dates of birth of the child and of their parents or carers; the names of parents or carers; their contact details, including their address; and their national insurance numbers. Those details are to be shared only in order to confirm, within each local authority area, which pupils are entitled to free school meals as a result of their parents and carers being in receipt of the Scottish child payment.
We know that the current practice and legal framework are acting as barriers to some families obtaining free school meals, hence the legal change we seek to make. For example, we are aware that the City of Edinburgh Council has written to more than 7,000 parents whose children may be eligible for free school meals but, to date, has received only 401 applications.
Therefore, if approved, the regulations will enable local authorities to proactively offer free school meals and thereby maximise the number of children who are able to access nutritious meals. As a result of that new legal gateway, there would be a significant improvement, which we estimate will benefit up to 25,000 children and their families across Scotland.
The regulations also allow for the same data to be shared for pupils in S1 to S3. Members will be aware that we have agreed to a further phase of the programme as part of the budget process, and this test of change phase will support those whose families are in receipt of Scottish child payment in S1 to S3 in eight local authority areas. The inclusion of those year groups in the regulations, if passed, will ensure that the participating local authorities can access the data that they need to allow eligible pupils to access free meals from August.
Social Security Scotland and my officials have liaised with the office of the Scottish Information Commissioner to ensure that the proposed data-sharing arrangement complies with data protection law, including in relation to data minimisation and proportionality. We have also completed equality and child’s rights impact assessments and the necessary operational data protection impact assessment is under way. The assessments found that there would be positive impacts on the rights and wellbeing of children, through the provision of support for healthy eating habits and potential improvements in educational attainment.
I thank members for their consideration of this important legislation and my officials and I will be happy to answer any questions.
We have a number of questions on the issue, and I will start. Can you tell me why 53(7) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 does not need to be amended?
I might defer to my officials on the question about the 1980 act, but, as I understand it, the regulations are required today because, at the current time, and as I outlined in my opening remarks, different local authorities across the country are using different ways of gathering data. The legislation will allow a new approach to data sharing. We have worked with Social Security Scotland over the past year to allow that to happen.
I understand all that and you explained it well in your opening statement, but the second page of your own policy note says:
“It is not intended that section 53(7) is amended at this time. However, this may be revisited in due course.”
I am just wondering why it will not be amended at this time, how that would be revisited and what the trigger for a revisit in due course would be.
Laura, do you want to come in here?
Section 53(7) of the 1980 act provides the requirements for providing free school meals. That approach is delivered through an agreement between Scottish ministers and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The trigger for consideration of any amendment to the 1980 act would be if there were concerns about implementation of the expansion to primary 6 and 7 on the basis of the Scottish child payment, but because the implementation is being worked through by agreement, there is no need for us to consider amending the act at this point. However, we might consider it if there were concerns down the line.
Do you mean concerns that local authorities were not delivering the policy?
Yes, anything around implementation. We do not have any concerns at the moment. We are working through the process of delivery just now.
It is a joint, shared arrangement.
Tell me about the reason why there has been no islands community impact assessment.
We considered all the impact assessments, as we are required to do. There is a pre-process that we are required to undertake, which is to consider whether there should be an impact assessment. We evaluated the system that will be introduced as a result of the regulations to establish whether islands would have to do a different or additional set of work that other local authority areas would not have to do. In that process, we established that there was nothing additional for islands to do.
Capacity is an issue that you have raised, cabinet secretary. Are there no issues with smaller local authorities and schools in the islands meeting the extra demand?
The impact assessment relates to the regulations.
Surely we have to consider whether the regulations can be implemented.
Yes, absolutely. We did that. The impact assessment is about whether the impact on islands is different from that on any other authority, and it was established that that was not to be the case. To confirm our position, we engaged with island authorities to ensure that it was not just officials’ view that that was the case, and they, too, confirmed it.
Cabinet secretary, can I ask you about the data protection impact assessment?
What would you like to ask about the data protection impact assessment?
Tell me about it for the regulations.
In terms of the data-sharing benefits or the—
No, the data protection impact assessment.
Are you asking about the practical impacts of the impact assessment?
Why has it just been developed and not been done yet?
My understanding is that it will be engaged in with local authorities. As I understand it, if the regulations are passed, they will allow us to move at pace with local authorities on that data-sharing arrangement, but some of the timescales associated with that need the Scottish statutory instrument to be passed to allow that work to be undertaken.
I see Laura Meikle nodding at that.
You wrote to us a couple of weeks ago about data sharing, because you know that the committee has considerable concern about the issue, and said:
“For any new or proposed data sharing arrangement, each organisation must complete a data protection impact assessment”.
For the negative instrument that we just considered, the data protection impact assessment had been done, because the instrument is now in place. Why are these regulations coming before the committee when the assessment for them has not been done? Why is it still being developed? If issues arise, how will they be brought to the committee or to Parliament as a whole?
My understanding is that the committee needs to take a decision on that before we can process the assessment.
I can answer the question specifically. The data impact assessment that has been undertaken is for the operational aspects after the—
So it has been undertaken.
It is in development at the moment. Social Security Scotland is working with the Scottish local authorities to complete that process as we go.
So, it has not been done.
It is being done now.
It is being done but it has not been done.
It is currently in development. There is a draft. We were advised that we did not require to do a data protection impact assessment in advance of the regulations.
Because the regs need to be passed.
Yes, but we are required to do it for the operation of the SSI once it is in force.
And it will not come into force until 19 May.
Is it that you cannot do it, or that you do not have to?
We do not have to.
We do not have to at this stage, but it will have to be in place by 19 May when the data-sharing agreement is in place.
Given that it was quite a significant part of your letter to the committee, what happens if issues arise from that? The letter says:
“A DPIA will typically identify both the lawful basis and legal gateway for processing any personal information.”
If issues are raised as a result, how will they come back to this committee or to Parliament? Are you saying, “Do not worry about this—we think that everything will be fine”?
I have not been advised that that would be the case, because the DPIA is already being developed by Social Security Scotland. It is planned to be completed by 19 May, but I take your point, convener, and I am more than happy to write to the committee on that point.
I am just wondering what the point of it is. If issues were to be raised, how would we then be able to scrutinise them? That is what I am trying to get at.
Indeed. No issues have thus far been raised with me or been presented to me by officials, but I would be more than happy to engage with the committee on that. As I understand it, there was no requirement to have that process completed by the laying of the SSI today, but there will be for it to come into force on 19 May.
I want to check that point, because it is slightly different. You suggested that you could not do it until the SSI had passed, but, Ms Meikle, you were saying—
It is partly under way, but it has not yet been completed.
Could it have been done before today?
Not for the SSI. We are not required to do a DPIA for the laying of the SSI.
Not required to.
The DPIA is not required for the legislative part. For the practice that then occurs as a result of the SSI being passed, should the committee do so, we are required to prepare one, and that is why it is in preparation now.
But there was nothing to stop you doing it, and perhaps it would be good practice going forward. Could it have been done to allow this discussion to take place with all the available information before members voted? That is all I am asking. Could it have been done?
I am not clear what the effect of that would have been. We would have impact assessed the regulation, but as a result of the DPIA, we would establish data-sharing agreements, which is what we have done. Therefore, I find it difficult to see—
Going back to the cabinet secretary’s letter, I note that it says that those assessments are
“to systematically analyse, identify and minimise the data protection risks of a project or policy.”
I can speak only for myself, but as a member of this committee, I would like to know whether any data protection risks of a project or policy have been identified in order to allow us to systematically analyse that. That is what it is for, and that is the reassurance that I took from your letter from last month, cabinet secretary.
I agree with what you have said, convener. All that I can update the committee on today is the advice that I have been given thus far, which is that the DPIA is under way. It is being developed by Social Security Scotland, and it is planned for completion by 19 May. If it is helpful, I can write to the committee with a further update. Work is taking place with local authorities, and stakeholders have raised no issues on the implementation thus far. It is a requirement that the DPIA be confirmed and completed by 19 May, when the SSI comes into effect.
Your question, convener, as I understand it, is whether we could have done that in advance of today. We need to take that away and reflect on it. It is a fair ask from the committee.
Thank you. This is my final question, cabinet secretary. Is there a risk? I ask you to take off your Government hat, go back to the days when you were a member of this committee—although in the governing party—and consider the regulation that we are discussing. Do you accept that people could be concerned that, if we pass the SSI, we will give the Government a get-out clause from the vote on 10 September last year, when the Parliament defeated the Scottish National Party Government on a vote on enacting a policy of universal free school meals for primary 1 to primary 7 pupils? The Parliament agreed to that motion by 64 votes to 60, with two abstentions. Despite the Government lodging an amendment that said that it was still your aspiration to deliver free school meals but that you did not have the funding to do so, it is clear that you were defeated. Therefore, the will of Parliament is for there to be universal free school meals for all primary pupils.
According to your policy note, by passing the SSI, we will
“increase the eligibility for free school meals but which are not as expansive as universal provision”.
By including that line in your policy note, are you giving yourself a get-out clause so that you can ignore the will of Parliament on 10 September last year if the SSI is passed today?
09:45
I do not think that you will be surprised to hear that I do not accept that. The Government’s aspiration for universal free school meals in primary schools remains; I stand by that commitment.
You will have heard extensively, in last year’s debate and in other exchanges in the Parliament, about the unaffordability of delivering such provision during this parliamentary term. Last year’s debate was informed by analysis from the Scottish Futures Trust, which suggested that universality would cost in the region of £256 million. Officials reminded me this morning that that figure is now two years out of date, so we can expect the cost to now be far in excess of £256 million. In the budget and in budget negotiations, we committed to a broader expansion that is focused on those receiving the SCP. If anything, I would argue that the regulations commit us to going more quickly than we otherwise would, because we would give the example—
They do not.
Yes, I saw you shaking your head.
I was—very much so. On page 1 of your policy note, it says that the regulations will
“increase the eligibility for free school meals but which are not as expansive as universal provision.”
Those of us on the committee who, only a few months ago, voted for universal provision, which was agreed to by the Parliament, will find it difficult to agree to the regulations because of the inclusion of that line in your policy note.
The Parliament also voted for a budget that committed the Government to expanding free school meals to those in receipt of the Scottish child payment. The regulations will allow us to move at pace on that commitment, which was set out in the budget. I recognise that your party did not vote for the budget—
But you are not delivering on your commitment to provide universal free school meals.
Mr Ross—
Sorry, but you made that pledge in the 2021 election and were then defeated in the Parliament on 10 September last year. Now, you are asking the committee—and, when the regulations go to the chamber, the Parliament—to agree to something that will allow you to deliver less.
The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, who is sitting behind you, is giving evidence after you. At the time, she said that the rollback on universal free school meals was a “broken promise to children”. She said that children going to school hungry could
“severely impact development in childhood and into adulthood”.
She also said:
“One of the greatest barriers to the take up of school meals are feelings of shame and stigma, and only providing meals to Primary 6 and 7 in receipt of the Scottish Child Payment just exacerbates that stigma.”
Do you agree with that? Do you agree that it sounds like the children’s commissioner does not support the regulations?
It is not my job, as cabinet secretary, to comment on the views of the children’s commissioner. The committee will hear from her shortly. However, the Parliament voted for a budget that commits the Government to expanding free school meals to those in receipt of the Scottish child payment. You and your party voted against the budget, but the SSI—
You and your party voted against a motion—
Sorry, Mr Ross, but you completed your question and now you are talking across me.
Cabinet secretary, that is because you are repeating a point that you have already—
Have you completed your question?
You are repeating a point that you have already made.
Do you respect the will of Parliament, on 10 September last year, to provide universal free school meals? Regardless of what was in the budget earlier this year, there was a vote in the Parliament to provide universal free school meals, and the regulations will allow you not to implement that, despite all the concerns from political parties and, as I have just articulated, the children’s commissioner.
I do not agree with that assertion. Targeting the expansion of free school meals at those receiving the Scottish child payment was agreed to in advance of the next stage of the universal roll-out. Therefore, the SSI does not preclude the Government from meeting its ultimate aspiration, which is to deliver universality. If anything, it compels the Government to deliver on—
If it compels you, when will you deliver it?
Excuse me?
You just said that the regulations compel you to deliver universal free school meals, so when will you deliver that? I am just using your words. That has now convinced me, so well done. If the regulations compel you to deliver universal free school meals, as you said, when will you do that?
The budget, as negotiated, commits the Government to the delivery of free school meals for primary 6 and 7 children in receipt of the Scottish child payment. It also commits us to further work on the test of change projects for secondary 1 to 3 pupils. You and your party voted against the budget. Today’s regulations will allow us to deliver on the budget that was passed by the Parliament. You are suggesting that the Government is not listening to the will of Parliament, but I am advancing the will of Parliament in that regard.
However, I accept the point about universal free school meals. The financial challenge that the Government faces is well known to the committee. I have talked about the budget gap in relation to the £256 million of investment that is required for universality. That budget line has not been updated for two years, so I am unable to give you a firm date today regarding universality, but I will continue to work across the chamber on the delivery of universality, because it is so important.
We talk about child poverty and about some of the impacts that have been borne by children in our schools. I hope that Mr Ross will also reflect on the impact that austerity has had on our children and their educational attainment in recent years. Some of the impacts on the Scottish Government’s budget have been caused by decisions that have been made by Governments elsewhere, including those made by his party.
I do not think that there is disagreement today—
There is big disagreement, cabinet secretary. I have let you make your points, but there is big disagreement.
You have repeatedly interrupted me, convener.
I did not interrupt you there. You got—
You did.
—to make all the points that you wanted to make.
Can you not just tell us when you will deliver universal free school meals? If you are saying that the regulations will take you forward towards that aim, tell us when that will happen.
Convener, as I have set out, the modelling that the Government last undertook on that is two years old—
That is on the Government. You could have done that in the past couple of years, could you not?
Convener, are you going to allow me to answer your question?
Yes. Could you have done new modelling in the past couple of years on the cost of the universal provision of free school meals?
The modelling that I have is two years old and puts the estimated cost at £256 million. I am more than happy to engage with political parties on how we deliver universality, but members well know, as we have discussed and debated at length, that that will not be during this session of Parliament because of the costs associated with the roll-out. However, the Government has taken the decision to work on a cross-party basis on the deliverability of the roll-out for children in receipt of the Scottish child payment. Today’s SSI will allow us to move forward at pace on that and will allow more families to obtain access to free school meals provision, which I think is a good thing for families and children in Scotland.
You have said that the Government has not looked at that figure for two years, so it is two years out of date. Are you saying, while pretending that you respect the will of Parliament, that, after the vote on 10 September last year, when your Government was defeated and the Parliament agreed to introduce universal free school meals, you did no work at all on how much that would cost?
Of course we constantly consider those costs. Following that debate, I engaged directly with the Scottish Futures Trust, particularly on the figure of £256 million that was put to us by the trust and was independently analysed.
Mr Ross’s colleague Liam Kerr, who was the education spokesperson at the time, put forward—he might have included it in your party’s motion—a different figure, which we differed on because, as I understand it, it did not include capital costs. I am in constant contact with the SFT about driving down those costs, and I am more than happy to consider other suggestions. Mr Kerr came forward with a suggestion, although I do not think that it was borne out by the facts, because the Government, with its expansive provision and the funding associated with that, has had to spend millions of pounds of capital on building kitchens, which has increased costs, but those costs were not accounted for in the Conservatives’ figure.
Let us go back to the budget negotiations. If the provision of universal free school meals is such a pressing issue for Mr Ross and his party, why was it not part of their budget negotiations?
It is very easy—
I do not recall it being—
Sorry, cabinet secretary, but it is very easy to answer that.
Convener, you have spoken over me today at length—
You have asked me a question—
—but you are not allowing me to answer the questions that you have put to me.
You have just put a question to me and I am happy to answer it. There is no need—
I will sit very quietly and allow you to interrupt and interject consistently. It is not particularly pleasant, but I will allow you to continue, Mr Ross.
That is very magnanimous of you—thank you, cabinet secretary.
You asked why the issue was not included in our budget negotiations. That was potentially because the Parliament had already agreed—the will of Parliament was clear on 10 September 2024, when your Government was defeated.
The Parliament also backed a budget to deliver on provision of the Scottish child payment, and that is what I am here to do today. You cannot pick and choose. We remain committed to the roll-out of universal free school meals.
It sounds as though you are picking and choosing. You have given a number of different timeframes. Can you clarify whether it has been two years since you have looked at the figures, which is why you cannot give us more accurate information, or whether you got figures just before or just after the debate on 10 September last year? You have given two answers on that.
The analysis that the SFT provided was from 18 months ago, and I have met the SFT and engaged further with it since that time. I am not aware that the SFT has given us a further update, because we will not be able to deliver universality during this session of Parliament. However, through the budget negotiations, we have been able to identify the additional funding required to deliver for P6 and P7 pupils receiving the SCP and to deliver on the asks by other parties regarding the roll-out of free school meals for S1 to S3 pupils. That is really important.
When your Government was defeated on 10 September, you did not go away and ask for updated figures.
I engaged with the SFT on that.
Are the figures that you are using from two years ago or from September last year? That is all that I am trying to get from you.
The £256 million figure was presented to us by the SFT 18 months ago.
What did you get in September last year, when you asked?
Alison, do you want to come in?
Can you not tell us, cabinet secretary?
We engaged with the SFT directly on those points and asked it to consider the figure again. My expectation, given my engagement with the SFT last year, is that, if anything, the figure will have increased from £256 million because of inflationary pressures. That was the discussion that I had with the SFT at that time.
Do you have a more recent figure than the one from two years ago?
The SFT has not carried out further modelling work on that, because it will not be possible to deliver universal free school meals during this parliamentary session.
Even though the Parliament agreed to that last year.
The Parliament agreed to that, but it also agreed to the budget. Universal free school meals will not be deliverable by the end of this parliamentary session, Mr Ross. I think that you know that.
We do not know, because you do not have up-to-date costs.
Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials. Thank you for joining us.
There is no doubt that people watching today will be disappointed that, although the Government came into office in 2021 having promised in its manifesto to provide free school meals for children in primaries 1 to 7, the committee is being asked to accept the fact that the Government has failed to meet that commitment and to accept, instead, a second-best option. Does the cabinet secretary agree?
Yes. I share that disappointment.
Does the cabinet secretary think that free school meals for children in primaries 1 to 7 will be delivered in this parliamentary session?
It is my expectation that, through work with local authorities, that will be delivered during this parliamentary session. That is my expectation and my understanding.
Based on my discussions with officials, we expect the vast majority of those projects to be delivered by the end of this calendar year. Some of them are more complex because—I was trying to make this point to Mr Ross—they require more extensive building works than others do. In the budget last year, we made provision for capital spending; this year, we have made provision available for resource spending. The funding has been made available. We have also provided the regulatory updates, which is what today’s SSI is about, and we are enabling local authorities to get on and deliver on the Parliament’s expectations, particularly in relation to the budget agreement.
But not on universal free school meals for children in primaries 1 to 7.
The budget agreement does not provide for that.
Does the cabinet secretary think that the budget agreement will provide for, at some point in this parliamentary session, the delivery of free school meals for children in primaries 1 to 7?
Are you talking about universality?
Yes.
No, because that is not the budget requirement. The budget will deliver the roll-out for P6 and P7 pupils who receive the SCP and the test of change project for pupils in S1 to S3.
The Government will not deliver free school meals to all pupils in primaries 1 to 7 in this parliamentary session.
That was confirmed in the parliamentary chamber many months ago.
That is the case despite manifesto commitments, expectations and the parliamentary vote.
The budget that the Parliament voted for commits us to the roll-out for primary 6 and 7 pupils who receive the Scottish child payment and for those in S1 to S3 through the test of change programme. It does not commit to universality. Ms Duncan-Glancy knows that, because we have discussed it at length in the chamber.
I accept that, but, with respect, cabinet secretary, it was the Government that proposed that budget.
Yes, it tends to be the Government that proposes the budget.
That budget did not propose funding to do what the Government said that it would do.
The budget proposes funding for roll-out that is targeted at those receiving the Scottish child payment. That was also in the programme for government last September. The Government has been pretty clear about its commitment, and the issue has been discussed at length in the chamber.
Why has the Government decided not to continue with its original aim of providing free school meals for all children in primaries 1 to 7?
Again, I have discussed that at length in the chamber. It is unaffordable. In relation to the budget gap, the Scottish Futures Trust last assessed the figure 18 months ago. The figure was assessed internally by the SFT, and we have pushed the SFT further in relation to that figure. Such provision is unaffordable in the remainder of this parliamentary session.
Does the cabinet secretary accept that the United Kingdom budget provided the largest budget settlement for the Scottish Government since devolution? People watching will be wondering: if not now, in these circumstances, when?
10:00
If the budget settlement from the UK Government was so generous, I am at a bit of a loss to understand why Ms Duncan-Glancy and her party abstained on the Scottish budget, which commits the Scottish Government—as does the SSI—to moving forward and doing more. I gave the example of the City of Edinburgh Council. In that local authority area alone, we expect thousands of families to benefit from the SSI. The instrument commits the Government to moving on the budget that was negotiated with and voted for by the Parliament—in other words, it commits us to progress.
I could sit back and allow local authorities to use the data-sharing measures that they currently use, but we know that those do not capture most families who receive the Scottish child payment. The SSI will ensure that local authorities have the data that they need to deliver on the funding that we have provided through the budget in relation to the Scottish child payment.
I agree with Ms Duncan-Glancy’s overall point about universality. She well knows the inflationary pressures that the Government was forced to contend with in 2021, which have made everything much more expensive. Building kitchens, for example, is now much more expensive than it was three years ago. There have been other costs that we have had to meet, not least in relation to pay deals, which has affected the budget that I have had to manage and what we have been able to pay for.
From a personal perspective as cabinet secretary, I deeply regret the fact that we have not been able to deliver universality. It remains an aspiration and a commitment of the Government. I am pleased that we are making progress in relation to the roll-out of the Scottish child payment. The SSI is the next step in our commitment to universal roll-out, and the Government stands by that.
Thank you for those responses. I have probably exhausted that line of questioning, so I will move on to data sharing.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that, in some situations, including in the pilot in the north-east on widening access to universities, data sharing has been an issue. Some witnesses have said in evidence to the committee that the pilot would not be scalable because of some of the data-sharing concerns. Does the cabinet secretary think that a unique learner number could be part of the solution to that?
It could, but there are differences when it comes to some of the widening access work that Mr Dey gave evidence on recently. I see the SSI as being part of the solution in the longer term for the exact same reason, because it will allow for a national approach to data sharing, which we do not currently have. In this instance, it will help local authorities to identify those who are in receipt of the Scottish child payment—I acknowledge that Mr Dey was giving evidence in relation to free school meals. More broadly, the instrument gives us an opportunity to learn how we might be able to better provide for data sharing between national Government, via—in this case—the auspices of Social Security Scotland, and local authorities.
I know that there have been significant challenges with the north-east pilot, which Mr Dey has written to the committee about, but I am keen that the approach that we are using in relation to the Scottish child payment, which compels the Government and local authorities to act, is one that we might be able to learn from in relation to widening access and to use in that space in the future.
A number of health organisations have recognised that a national approach could be useful. I do not disagree with what the cabinet secretary has said, but it could be quite cumbersome to have agreements in every case, which is why the idea of a unique learner number has been suggested. Is the Government exploring that?
We are considering such options. Ms Duncan-Glancy is absolutely correct to say that, if we have 32 different councils doing 32 different things, the process will take a lot longer. The SSI will allow our councils to move at pace.
Deliverability is key. It is our expectation that the measure will be delivered. I have spoken about the funding that has been made available in last year’s budget and this year’s budget, but the SSI enables the data to be shared and allows councils to get on with it. If we allowed local authorities to do their own thing, it would be much more challenging for them to obtain that data and to work with families. As I understand it, Social Security Scotland will provide the information directly to education authorities as soon as the SSI comes into force on 19 May. That will allow them to move at pace and to contact the families in question directly.
I think that there is learning that could be taken from what we are doing here, and I accept the point about a unique learner number.
We received a letter from the Information Commissioner’s Office, which said:
“The committee should note that we have not, to date, had any discussions with the Scottish Government, local authorities or institutions on how data can be shared fairly and proportionately to support widening access to university ... Nor have we had any engagement with the Scottish Government on the Data Protection considerations associated with establishing an identifier like the ULN.”
I was surprised to read that, given the undertakings that we have had about the Government’s willingness to consider a unique learner number. Will you now engage with an open mind with a view to progressing that?
The committee will be well aware that the Information Commissioner takes a keen interest in all these data sharing issues, and for good reason. His office has raised no concerns with us about the SSI—I want to be very clear on that point. However, there are things that we can learn from the SSI that can be taken to a widening access space in relation to the points that Pam Duncan-Glancy raises. I would want to talk to the Information Commissioner’s office directly about how we might be able to use the SSI in a widening access context, because, thus far, the approaches have been quite different. I do not want to conflate the approach that has been taken in that regard. However, I will take away the point that Ms Duncan-Glancy has raised, because it is an important one.
The minister and others gave the impression that the unique learner number is something that the Government has explored but, for various reasons, could not take forward. However, given that the Government has not had those conversations, it appears strange that it has already come to such a conclusion.
I do not want to speak on behalf of Mr Dey. I reassure Ms Duncan-Glancy that I will take that point away from today’s evidence session and seek to engage directly with the Information Commissioner, particularly on this SSI and how it might be used as a learning point for us in relation to widening access.
As the member knows well, there have been real challenges in that regard. Mr Dey and I met Universities Scotland—I think at the start of this year—to talk about some of those challenges, because we want to have better data sharing. The Information Commissioner’s office has a direct role when there are challenges, and we need to be assured of all that we are doing. That assurance has been given in relation to this SSI. It may be that there is an opportunity to dovetail the approach that we have taken with this SSI in relation to Social Security Scotland and a national approach to widening access. I would be keen to pursue that with his office.
Thank you.
On that point, do you understand, that there will be some frustration today that the proposal has not been pursued? The unique learner number is not a new thing; it is something that the commissioner for fair access has referred to in the past. I do not know whether Mr Dey would accept this comment, but there was disappointment when he was at the committee that he was not able to tell us whether the unique learner number would need legislation, what it would cost or details about some of those data-sharing issues.
Several weeks have now passed and you have only today given a commitment to speak to the Information Commissioner. Many people will have hoped that the Government would have done that before now. If this is something that you are treating seriously, why have you not done that?
It would be remiss of me to speak on behalf of Mr Dey. The approach that has been used in relation to widening access has been quite different to the one that we have undertaken with the Scottish child payment more broadly. However, I take the point that the convener has made. As I mentioned, we discussed the issue with Universities Scotland very recently. The approach in this SSI has been in the making with Social Security Scotland for many months, if not longer. It has taken longer than it should have taken to get the data share with Social Security Scotland. We want to learn from that experience and see whether the proposal is possible.
I have not been presented with advice on this, so I do not want to speak out of turn. However, I want to discuss with officials whether we could lift the approach that has been used in relation to the SCP and apply it to widening access. As I said, thus far, I have not had advice on that. There is a slight difference with the unique learning number that you spoke about. I see that Ms Meikle is nodding—she may want to come in on that point.
I understand that Social Security Scotland is currently considering whether the approach could have wider applicability. It would be for Social Security Scotland to provide an update on that, if that would be helpful.
We will ask Social Security Scotland to provide a written update to the committee. We want more young people to have access to university and higher education, but we also want them to have access to free school meals, which is the purpose of the SSI that is before us today. We will take that point away and provide the committee with a further update on the points that Ms Duncan-Glancy has raised, which are very fair.
I am just trying to understand this. Clearly, you and your officials thought that we need to get agreement and have conversations with the ICO on the proposal. The minister accepted that. The unique learner number has been discussed for years and has been recommended by the commissioner for fair access and others. Given those points, why have officials not said to Mr Dey or others in Government, “We are having a discussion with the ICO on this SSI; we also need to have a discussion if we are going to make progress with the unique learner number”? Has no one raised that with you or the minister?
I have not been given advice on that issue. This SSI relates to the Scottish child payment. However, I take your point, convener. The point that Ms Duncan-Glancy raises about engagement with the Information Commissioner’s Office is a fair one. As I understand it, higher education officials regularly engage with the office—I see officials nodding. I want to take this away to be absolutely assured of that point with them.
On 28 March, the Information Commissioner’s Office wrote to the committee, and I will quote from its letter:
“The committee should note that we have not, to date, had any discussions with the Scottish Government, local authorities or institutions on how data can be shared fairly and proportionately to support widening access to university or any engagement on the North East Scotland pilot. Nor have we had any engagement with the Scottish Government on the Data Protection considerations associated with establishing an identifier like the ULN.”
That is very clear to us.
Part of the challenge here is that the north-east pilot is a locally owned project, which is why the data sharing at local level, as I understand it—having discussed it with Universities Scotland—is being carried out between Aberdeen City Council, Aberdeenshire Council and Robert Gordon University. They are all currently finalising data-sharing arrangements. I would expect that, through the finalisation of those data-sharing arrangements, there will be engagement with the Information Commissioner and his office.
But the minister was specifically asked about rolling that out. It would not just be between local areas; it would involve making that a national issue, in the same way that the unique learner number would be nationwide.
The north-east project is a pilot and, as I understand it, the view was that a pilot would be undertaken in one part of the country and learning would be taken from that. In order for us to go to the Information Commissioner’s Office and take that learning, we first need to have a pilot to evaluate.
That data sharing is due to take place in the spring, and evaluation of that work is planned for later this year. At that point, I would fully expect engagement with the Information Commissioner’s Office to be undertaken to ensure a robust approach to national roll-out. Further, if there is applicable learning from this SSI, across the board, we can use that at a national level.
But that would not be the case with the unique learner number.
Why so?
Because there is not a pilot for that.
The pilot that has been identified in the north-east does not use that approach, but—
So, the unique learner number is something that has just been—are you shaking your head?
Sorry?
Are you shaking your head?
I don’t think so—no.
You were shaking your head and I thought you wanted to come in, but you do not want to come in.
Apologies—no, I do not.
So, cabinet secretary, the unique learner number is not subject to a pilot.
As I understand it, no. However, we will learn from the pilot, so I am not discounting it. A pilot is something that we have to learn from at national level. In rolling it out with the individual local authorities that I named and with Robert Gordon University, we will seek to learn from the process, and we will engage the Information Commissioner’s Office on the best way to do that at national level. That does not preclude your suggestions in relation to the unique learner number, which I know has been discussed at length at the committee previously.
The issue is not so much about the pilot and its scalability at this point, as the pilot is still on-going. The point is that, during the process, organisations said that one of the issues that would always make the work difficult to do, even if the pilot was found to be good and useful, was that there is not an ease of data sharing.
We are trying to get a commitment from the cabinet secretary. We have previously been under the impression that the Government was considering the idea of a unique learner number. That was for a number of reasons, not least in the light of the Hayward review and in relation to the issue that we are discussing today. That is why I have raised the matter today, when we are talking about data sharing.
To be really clear, can the cabinet secretary confirm that the Government will now engage the Information Commissioner in considering whether a unique learner number would potentially be something that it could bring in, for data sharing and for other purposes?
There has been continuous engagement with the Information Commissioner’s Office in relation to data sharing across the board. The point that I was trying to make is that we have a local pilot happening in the north-east. On the chronology of what needs to happen next—this has been going on for some time now—the data-sharing arrangement is currently being finalised. The data sharing is due to take place in the spring, and the evaluation work is planned for later this year, at which point I would expect engagement to be undertaken with local partners and the Information Commissioner’s Office.
From that pilot we will learn how best to approach a national roll-out. Of course we will have to engage with the Information Commissioner’s Office on that, and on the learning from the pilot, but the pilot and the data-sharing arrangement have not yet been completed. The chronology of that is important in relation to the engagement with the Information Commissioner’s Office, the learning from the pilot and how we can upscale it and potentially roll it out at national level.
10:15
Sorry, but I am finding this a little bit frustrating. I am not talking about any action that the Government takes on this being contingent on the learning from the pilot. In the discussion that the committee had, it was put to us that the ULN could be one solution not only in relation to the pilot in the north-east but in other areas, including in relation to what Hayward suggested in the review.
The minister said, “We have looked at it, but we cannot do it, but we are not sure why we cannot do it”—I have to say that he was not all that clear—but now, the Information Commissioner’s Office has said that the Government has not discussed the matter with it. I am trying to get some recognition of that and to give the Government an opportunity to say that it will now consider the suggestion, given that there was some acceptance from the minister that it might be useful. In fact, the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise also said that.
This is an opportunity for the Government to say that it will look at the matter and will engage with the Information Commissioner’s Office, regardless of what happens with the pilot. The pilot could be helpful in that regard, but pursuing the ULN issue is not necessarily contingent on the pilot.
I do not think that we are at odds here, Ms Duncan-Glancy. We agree that we want to engage with the Information Commissioner’s Office on all this in relation to data sharing, and we have done that extensively in relation to the SSI that I am here to discuss.
In relation to the Aberdeen widening access pilot, we must also be mindful that, although the Government has a role in relation to the budget and our commitment to delivery of the SCP, we are talking about Aberdeen City Council, Aberdeenshire Council, Robert Gordon University and the University of Aberdeen. The universities are autonomous and independent of Government, and our councils have the statutory responsibility for the delivery of education. What we are able to do in relation to the widening access pilot might not look exactly the same as what we have done to apply the SSI to the SCP roll-out. However, in all of those projects, we must engage with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
In today’s session, Ms Duncan-Glancy has heard my willingness to pursue the matter further with the Information Commissioner’s Office. I also hear the convener’s point on that. My view is that we should take learning from the SSI to allow us to move at pace in relation to data sharing. The widening access pilot has had challenges regarding the timescales that are associated with it, which we accept; however, the SSI that we are discussing today commits the Government to move at pace and it will mean that local authorities will have that data in their hands by 19 May, when the SSI comes into effect, and they will be able to share that data with families accordingly.
If any information or learning can be taken from the approach that I am talking about today and applied to the widening access pilot or the broader national approach, I would be keen to do that, with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Good morning. I want to clarify some points in your statement and in what you have said this morning. First, am I correct in saying that the figures that were presented to Parliament around extending free school meals are two years out of date?
Eighteen months.
Is it right that the figures that were presented to Parliament in the budget were inflation proofed in order to deliver on the commitments that they support? I think that the Liberal Democrats and the Greens supported that.
The budget commits us to the roll-out of free school meals to children in primary 6 and 7 who are in receipt of the Scottish child payment, and to children in S1 to S3 who are in receipt of the Scottish child payment in the eight test of change local authorities that I referred to earlier.
Can you tell the committee which local authorities those will be?
I cannot. I wrote to all local authorities two weeks ago. I have yet to be provided with advice from Ms Meikle; we discussed that earlier. I expect to receive that advice in the coming days. I would be happy to share the advice with the committee when I have it, but it has not yet been presented to me.
That would be very helpful.
On the issue of children missing out, how many should be receiving free school meals under the Government’s manifesto commitment but will not be by the end of this parliamentary session?
Do you mean in relation to children who are in receipt of the Scottish child payment or universally?
Both.
In terms of universality—
The estimated number of children and young people who would benefit from universal free school meals is about 90,000, and the estimated number of children who will benefit as a result of this piece of work is 25,000. That is in addition to the children and young people who are eligible through the criteria in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.
The 25,000 are the extra children whom we anticipate will be captured by the SSI. There are thousands of families who are currently missing out on free school meals for their children, which is not good.
We want all families who should be in receipt of free school meals to have that for their child or young person. The SSI will mean that the data sharing is much better and more granular at a local level, and it will allow local authorities to move at pace in implementing the extra funding that we have provided them with to deliver on that commitment.
The issue is not new—it has been raised with the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, and other committees have raised it, too. The Government has been very slow to make progress on the issue. Am I right in saying that there are 90,000 children who are entitled to free school meals, but there are 25,000 young people who are not receiving free school meals who should be, or is that the number of children who will receive free school meals?
Twenty-five thousand extra children and young people will receive free school meals as a result of the SSI, which will take provision to around 84 per cent of all children and young people in primary schools. That would leave around 90,000 children and young people who would have benefited from universal free school meals.
Thank you for that clarification.
Sorry. I thought that it would leave 65,000 children, but the 25,000—
I had not deducted the 25,000 from the 90,000.
So, there are still 90,000 children across Scotland who will not get free school meals because the Government has not—
No. I am sorry—it is 65,000.
It is 65,000—okay.
It is 65,000. I did not do the maths.
At the moment, the total is 90,000. If the SSI is agreed to, we will decrease the 90,000 by 25,000 to 65,000.
Yes. My apologies.
I just wanted to check. I am getting nods of agreement—that is good.
Finally, cabinet secretary, I read you a number of quotes from the children’s commissioner, and you said that you would not put words in her mouth. I will read one of those quotes again and invite you to respond:
“One of the greatest barriers to the take up of school meals are feelings of shame and stigma, and only providing meals to P6-P7 in receipt of the Scottish Child Payment just exacerbates that stigma.”
Do you accept that the SSI that you are asking us to approve will, according to the children’s commissioner, exacerbate the shame and stigma for young people who take up free school meals?
You and I are probably of similar ages. Certainly, when we were at school, those who were in receipt of free school meals were provided with a certain colour of ticket for the dinner queue, which created stigma. My understanding is that that approach is not used in our schools any more, which has really helped to take away some of the stigma.
I accept the children’s commissioner’s point and think that it is valid. There are many different ways in which schools deal with reducing stigma, such as their work on the cost of the school day, which we have been able to fund through the pupil equity fund. Schools are adept at managing when children and their families are in need.
Would I like us to get to universality? Yes, and that remains the Government’s firm focus. There is no provision in the budget for us to do that, because of the associated costs that we have spoken about, such as inflationary pressure and things being much more expensive. The Government has also had to meet the cost of pay deals. Although we agree with those pay deals, that has ultimately made our original commitment on free school meals unaffordable.
However, the SSI will allow us to make firm progress, and it will expand the number of families who can receive free school meals. I think that that will be a good thing for the children of Scotland.
I was in receipt of free school meals for a period when my father lost his job, so I totally understand what you have said. However, I specifically asked you whether you agreed with the children’s commissioner’s view that the SSI that you have lodged will exacerbate stigma, because it will result in free school meals being provided only to primary 6 and primary 7 children who are in receipt of the Scottish child payment. Do you agree with that view?
Under the nutritional regulations, local authorities are legally required not to create stigma for young people in their schools. That is really important. Nico McKenzie-Juetten can keep me right on that.
Section 53B of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 provides for the protection of the identity of pupils who receive free school lunches. That is existing law, which would kick in here, too. Reasonable steps must be taken by education authorities to ensure that the identity of those who are receiving free school meals is not revealed, other than to people who need to know in order to provide meals to them.
I am going to try again, cabinet secretary. For the third time, do you agree with the children’s commissioner that your SSI will, by providing free school meals only to primary 6 and primary 7 students who are in receipt of the Scottish child payment, exacerbate stigma?
You have just heard from Nico that there is a legal requirement for local authorities not to stigmatise children. In my experience, I do not see evidence of that happening in our schools. I trust Scotland’s teachers, who are trained caring professionals, not to stigmatise the young people who are in their care. That is not how members of the teaching profession and those who work in our schools work with our children and young people. When families are in need, they work with them every day. We need to be very careful about suggesting otherwise.
So, you disagree with the children’s commissioner on that point. We will hear from her next, and I would like to put the point to her.
I have set out the SSI; we are dancing on the head of a pin.
We are not.
I do not agree.
With respect, cabinet secretary, you are not answering the question. Do you agree or disagree with the children’s commissioner?
I agree that our schools work every day not to stigmatise those families who are most in need. They are compelled by legislation to ensure that they do not stigmatise, and I trust that they work in our schools every day to ensure that they do not do so.
If the children’s commissioner or the committee have any examples of children being stigmatised on the issue, I am more than happy to consider those, because that would be a real challenge. I would not want that to be happening in our schools. However, I have not been presented with such evidence in the past two years, and I trust Scotland’s teachers and the staff who work in our schools not to stigmatise. They work tirelessly, every day, in a very caring profession, and I do not think that a stigmatising approach is taken in our schools. I have not witnessed such an approach in recent times.
Do you accept that there is quite a big difference between the obligation that is put on local authorities by section 53B of the 1980 act and what the children’s commissioner is perhaps seeing in our schools?
We can write to the committee with further examples of how the issue is managed in our schools, to provide you with reassurance on that point, convener.
I was hoping to get it ahead of the commissioner’s coming in.
Cabinet secretary, what are the implications for Scotland’s schoolchildren of the SSI not being agreed to?
The implications are that 25,000 children in Scotland would not receive free school meals—or, at least, that there would be a delay in their receiving access to free school meals.
Given your evidence in response to Douglas Ross’s questions about the number of families who are not accessing their entitlement, what concerns would you have for those families, should the committee not recommend that the SSI be approved?
My concern would be that children would not access free school meals that they should have access to. Although we have not really talked about it today, there is academic evidence to suggest that free school meals have a role in attainment, attendance and a young person’s wellbeing. I do not think that there will be any political disagreement on the purpose behind the SSI, which is really important. It is about empowering our local authorities to identify those families.
I accept some of the challenge about the length of time that it has taken for Social Security Scotland to progress the issue, but once the SSI has been approved, the process will move at pace, with the instrument coming into force on 19 May. That will empower local authorities to deliver to the families in question, which is imperative for our children and young people.
The Government did not need to introduce an SSI on the issue. We could have sat back and allowed local authorities to do their own thing. However, that would have taken much longer and would have been detrimental to children and families.
So, the danger of playing political games on this is that children go hungry.
Exactly that.
You have already answered this question three or four times, but it seems that it is now our practice to ask the same questions three or four times as we go along. Is the SSI not an example of the Government seeing an issue with the sharing of data and finding a solution? When answering that question, please do not blink or shake your head, or the convener will ask you outside for a square go.
It is an example of the Government recognising the challenge of the fact that lots of families have missed out over the years, who should—this relates to Ms Haughey’s point—have been able to access free school meals.
I broadly agree with the convener’s point about the stigma that, historically, has been associated with free school meals. The data-sharing arrangement goes some way to overcoming that, because it empowers local authorities to reach out to families by writing to them directly to make sure that their children are in receipt of free school meals.
Politically, we should be in lockstep on the issue. I accept the challenge in relation to universality. We could have a political debate about why the Government has not been able to afford that during the current parliamentary session. However, fundamentally, the SSI is about data sharing and, as Ms Haughey said, making sure that those children who are hungry receive food in school so that they are able to attain and to attend, which there are real challenges with post the pandemic. The SSI is part of our holistic response to that situation in our schools. The Government has come forward with a solution.
I am not here to be given marks out of 10 by committee members. I do not expect praise or feedback to that end, but we need to learn from this. I accept that it has been a challenge for us to move forward at pace, but we must use this as an opportunity to have better data sharing so that we can feed more children in our schools and meet the needs of more learners across Scotland, including in relation to widening access more broadly.
10:30
I find it hugely frustrating that we hear about data issues, the Government does something about that, and then we seem to go down a rabbit hole at committee, instead of talking about the efforts to make sure that 25,000 children are not going hungry. That is part of the issue. Do you not agree that, when we discuss such challenging issues, we need to do so with a level of maturity so that we can talk about the end game and what we are trying to deliver?
That would certainly be my aspiration. I am old enough to remember when Mr Adam and I took evidence in this room on the Finnish approach to education, which is depoliticised. The approach that is taken by political parties in that country is quite different from the one that is taken in Scotland, which tends to be split along constitutional lines.
When we talk about children in poverty, we should all be on the same page, working towards supporting those who are most in need. The SSI will allow us to make progress on that. I accept that the Government’s aspiration in relation to universality will not be met before the next election—that is well known to members; we have debated the issue in the chamber—but the SSI means that the Government will be compelled to make progress. We have put in place the extra funding, and we now expect local authorities to deliver on it. That is exactly why the SSI is so important.
Since we are sharing experiences from childhood, back in my day, if you had free school dinners, you would be split up from everyone else, so things have moved on quite a bit since I was a young person who had to deal with that situation.
Absolutely.
I will follow on from Mr Adam’s point. You have been very generous in accepting some of the points that have been made—you have not necessarily agreed with them, but you accept that it is right that we look at the issue. However, committees are also here to scrutinise SSIs. If we simply rubber-stamped every SSI, that would not make for good legislation. Do you accept that?
Mr Ross, I know that you are not here to rubber-stamp all my SSIs. You are here to challenge me. That is your job, and it is your right to do so. I respect that—of course I do.
My final point is about the time that this process has taken, which you mentioned a couple of times to Clare Haughey and George Adam. How long have different Government departments been working on this? What is the total period?
I heard a sharp intake of breath from my right, Mr Ross, so I will defer to Ms Meikle on that.
We have spent more than a year on the preparation of this work. There has been a lot of discussion this morning about the challenges of establishing data-sharing arrangements. That is true. It is absolutely necessary to specifically define the purpose of those arrangements, and it takes time to develop that. We have other data-sharing arrangements in place, which we are working with the UK Government on. They have taken far longer. The process takes more than a year—it takes a lot of time.
I am not making a political point here—I apologise if it sounds as though I am—but are you saying, basically, that, had the Government been able to do what it wanted to do on day 1, some 25,000 young people across Scotland would have had an extra year of free school meals?
We would not have been able to bring forward the SSI without doing all the preparatory work. It would not have been possible. I understand your point, but I am not able to agree with it.
My point is that it should never take a year to do the work on an issue such as free school meals. That point applies to not only the Scottish Government and Scottish bodies but the UK Government and others. If a Government has an aspiration to take action on an issue such as free school meals, on which I do not think that there is political disagreement, there must surely be a way to do so, and it should not take a year. Maybe the SSI will lead to good practice in future.
The SSI has taken quite some time to prepare. Given that I am responsible for all of it, I will mention the other part of the challenge that we face, which is the fact that there is not sufficient infrastructure in schools’ dining and kitchen facilities, and we require to build that. As much as I would have loved to have been able to have that done very quickly, unfortunately, it takes time and cannot be done quickly. There are other aspects that have also been a challenge for us.
We move to agenda item 3. I invite the cabinet secretary to move motion S6M-16753.
Motion moved,
That the Education, Children and Young People Committee recommends that the Social Security Information-sharing (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.—[Jenny Gilruth]
Do you have anything to add, cabinet secretary?
No—nothing.
Do members have any comments?
Having listened to the evidence, I think that this is definitely a move in the right direction. As I understand it, a further 25,000 children will get free school meals who would not otherwise have done so. It appears to me that that will, in fact, reduce stigma, because those 25,000 children will be taken out of being possibly stigmatised. For example, in Glasgow, every child who gets lunch gets a card. That means that, regardless of whether one is paying for one’s lunch, one has the same card. That has been a long-standing thing. It does not completely remove stigma, but it has been a good step in that direction.
We want to do more in this field, and I think that we all agree on that. If, as some parties wanted, we had reduced tax, that would have meant many more children paying for their lunches or just going without lunch altogether, but, thankfully, the Conservatives were defeated on that issue and the budget was agreed to. Obviously, the budget overrides any previous votes that Parliament had, which were non-binding. The SSI is certainly a good move in the right direction, and I am happy to support it.
The question is, that motion S6M-16753, in the name of Jenny Gilruth, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to,
That the Education, Children and Young People Committee recommends that the Social Security Information-sharing (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.
The committee must now produce a report on the draft instrument. Is the committee content to delegate responsibility to me, as convener, to agree the report on behalf of the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes the consideration of the instrument.
Before I release you, cabinet secretary, there are a couple of quick questions about the University of Dundee. I go to Willie Rennie.
When the announcement about the job losses came out, cabinet secretary, you and Graeme Dey indicated that you would explore all options to protect jobs, and he said that you would “manage down” the number of job losses, accepting that there would be some. However, this week, we have been told by the university’s interim principal that there is no change in the 632 job losses, and that as many as 700 jobs could be affected. Will you update us on what work is being done to manage down that number and do everything possible to protect jobs?
I am meeting the Scottish Funding Council later today, along with Mr Dey. I was somewhat surprised by the correspondence that the committee received in relation to that number, which had not been shared with ministers in advance. I recognise the concern, and I share that concern very much.
The committee is aware, as we have stated this publicly, that there has been no further financial ask of Government beyond the £22 million of liquidity, which has been met. However, Mr Dey and I have been very clear that we are open to additional asks from the university, under the auspices of the SFC, recognising the legal need for that in this space.
We have also been very clear that, although it is not palatable to ministers, that is the number that we expect. However, the university said in evidence to the committee two or three weeks ago that it was looking at alternatives. We have not yet been presented with those alternatives. I expect them to be presented to the SFC in the coming weeks, and I would be more than happy to, and I expect to, give an update to the committee on that.
You were surprised by the letter this week, but you are hopeful of receiving an alternative model in the next few weeks.
I have had a lot of discussion and engagement with the university—with the senior management, the trade unions and, last week, the student union. The community of Dundee is very concerned about all this. Mr Rennie and I know, because our constituencies border Dundee over the water, how important the university is to Dundee and the wider economy.
We expect the university to consider alternatives. It is a very challenging time for the University of Dundee in relation to its finances. We have made available that liquidity support, and we are looking at what more we might be able to provide to the university. However, we have not yet had a further ask from the university, and we remain open to such asks.
[Inaudible.]—driving down, or managing down, as Graeme Dey said, the number of job losses.
Very much so. I need to be mindful of what I say here as cabinet secretary.
Of course.
The committee will understand the role of the Scottish Funding Council in this, and that the Government is unable to direct funding in this space. We have to do that under the auspices of the SFC, as set out in the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005.
You will have seen in The Courier today reports about the finance that the Government was going to make available to the SFC through loans. It is reported that the figure was initially £20 million, and that that was signed off by the First Minister, but it was later reduced to £15 million. However, no explanation was given for that last-minute change. Can you shine some light on why it changed?
The total ask from the university was £22 million. The Government has made £25 million available, as Mr Rennie knows, which is £15 million through the budget and an additional £10 million of capital that I announced more recently, so that funding gap has been met.
As I understand it, there were negotiations about the amount required as part of the budget process and from financial transactions at that time. I do not think there should be any surprise, because the ask of £22 million has been met by the £15 million in the budget and the additional £10 million that I announced.
You are right that the university has got what it has asked for so far, but I am intrigued as to why it went from £20 million in financial transaction support down to £15 million at the last minute, after the First Minister had signed it off. I am puzzled by that.
I think that Mr Rennie’s puzzlement may be informed by the release of emails in response to a freedom of information request. It is quite difficult to understand the full story but, as I understand it, two weeks ago, Richard Maconachie came to the committee and said that the Scottish Funding Council was working with the Scottish Government to identify how the £22 million could be put together. As I understand it from having been on the copy list, there were negotiations at that time between the SFC and the Government to identify how the £22 million could be made available, and that was done through £15 million in the budget and the extra £10 million that I made available, giving a total of £25 million, so the full funding ask was met.
I am not going to get any more out of you but I am intrigued as to why all that changed. Perhaps you will tell us at some point. At the end of the day, the university has got the money that it asked for, which is important, but I always like to find out the full story. Maybe you will feel able to tell us at some point.
The £22 million has been made available. As I understand it as cabinet secretary, I think that there was a negotiation between the SFC and the Government regarding how funding could be made available through the budget process. It is very clear that we acted at pace to provide that extra funding—we had to act at pace when the full quantum of job losses became known to the Government. That is why that funding was made available through the budget and it is why I announced the extra funding.
There are ways in which funding can be made available. Part of the funding—the £15 million—came through the budget process, but the other part of it came through £10 million in capital that I announced later. The important point is that the £22 million liquidity ask from the University of Dundee has been fully met and that there have been no further asks since.
Perhaps the £5 million that is still in the kitty might be used to provide extra support for Dundee.
I am not necessarily sure that it is “in the kitty” per se. However, I take Mr Rennie’s point on the optics of that and go back to the overall quantum that has been met by Government.
You said that you acted at pace but the university told us that the request for £22 million went in, I think, a month before the Government received the recovery plan that included the figure of 632 full-time-equivalent job losses. Was there an opportunity to provide that liquidity funding at an earlier stage?
Not as I understand it. On 19 February, the SFC notified the Government of the university’s request for urgent liquidity support, and on 25 February we announced that £15 million of financial transactions would be made available to the Scottish Funding Council to support universities such as Dundee. Those dates—19 and 25 February—show that we acted at a pretty urgent pace.
But you knew then that that was not enough.
We knew that we would have to meet the liquidity request and we worked at pace to provide that additionality.
Was that all before you knew that 632 FTE jobs were at risk?
I would have to go back to the draft financial recovery plan, which I do not have in front of me.
I think you became aware of that only on 7 March.
I think that that is right.
You were providing that funding. When the university was telling you what it needed and asking for £22 million, did it make you aware that it was also going to announce hundreds of job losses even if you gave it that money?
No. The university was engaging with the SFC, because it had to engage directly with the SFC rather than the Government. The engagement was undertaken with the SFC.
On 14 February, the university requested urgent liquidity support from the SFC and on 19 February the SFC notified the Scottish Government. On 25 February, we provided the extra £15 million more broadly and on 6 March the SFC received the draft copy of the FRP, which, on 7 March, was sent to the Scottish Government. That draft included details of the proposed reduction in the number of staff. That is the chronology. The £15 million was made available and, at a later date, we found out the actual number of job losses and met the asks in relation to the £22 million of liquidity support.
Were you always aware, when the Scottish Government signed off on the original £15 million and then the additional £10 million, that, although you were meeting the financial request, you were not going to save any jobs with that money? Was that always your understanding?
10:45
I would need to check back on that, convener. From memory, at that point in February, the total number had not been communicated to us as ministers because the draft FRP had not been shared with us, and it is the draft FRP that sets out the quantum of job losses.
That is what I am asking.
As the committee knows, the liquidity support allows the university to continue, but it does not bring the job loss number down. We need to work with the SFC on next steps in that regard, while remembering and respecting the independence of that institution. I am mindful of Office for National Statistics classification in all of this, and we need to be careful about that.
On Mr Rennie’s point, we have met the liquidity request. We are open, as a Government, to working with the SFC on any further requests. None has thus far been made. However, we expect an alteration to be made to the draft FRP, because, as the committee heard two weeks ago from the interim principal, the university is looking at alternatives. When that alteration comes forward, the Government will consider what further support we can provide under the auspices of the SFC. We will be completely transparent with the committee on how we do that. We need to be really careful about ONS classification in all of this.
This is a challenging time for the University of Dundee and for the city of Dundee. Yesterday’s reports will not have helped. It is the Government’s job in this situation to help support the university and its staff—all the people who work there—and its students. We are absolutely committed to doing that and will continue to engage with all those people.
I agree with the point about yesterday’s news. It will be extremely difficult for those who are currently at the university and for those who are looking to go to it in the future, and those people are crucial for the sustainability of the university.
On Mr Rennie’s point, who made the suggestion to cut the announced allocation from £20 million to £15 million?
I do not have the email chain in front of me—I think that Mr Rennie’s point was informed by that chain, as well as perhaps the report in The Courier. Without seeing that, I am not sure that there was a suggestion in it to cut the figure per se. I think that there was a negotiation between the SFC and the Government—this is just my memory, so I will have to check back, convener—to assess what was required at that moment to assist the university.
I appreciate that some of those emails have been released and that some of them are redacted, which does not help to shed light on the issue—I accept that. However, I can say that there was a communication between the SFC and the Government at that time, during the budget process, to move at pace to provide that extra funding. That was provided, and then there was the £22 million liquidity request. I do not necessarily accept that there was a decision to reduce the amount. From memory, this would have been advice that was given to ministers by the SFC at that time.
Given our interest, would you review some of the information that is in the public domain and the discussions, and update the committee?
I am more than happy to do that. I accept the committee’s on-going interest in this issue and I very much share it. I am happy to share as much as I am able to with the committee. We will meet the SFC later today, and if I can shed further light on our engagement with the SFC and the next steps, I will do so. Timescales are important here and we need to move at pace. I am happy to provide that information in writing to the committee.
Finally, you said that the figure of 700 in the SFC’s letter took you by surprise. Did you ask what the full figure would be? The reason why the interim principal wrote to the committee was that I asked, if 632 FTE jobs were to be lost, what was the number of people who would lose their jobs. That letter is how we found out.
Mr Dey and I have interrogated the draft FRP with the principal and the senior management team—
Are you saying that you asked but did not receive that?
We have asked and we have engaged with the interim principal and the senior management team. There was no movement from the 634 figure in that engagement, so we were surprised by yesterday’s reports. We will continue to engage with and support the senior management team at the university as best we can via the SFC, but that figure was not shared with ministers in advance of the committee receiving it yesterday, which is concerning. I, along with Mr Dey, will discuss that matter with the SFC later today. I am happy to share further updates with you, convener, and the committee.
Willie Rennie pursued some of the questions that I had about the University of Dundee, cabinet secretary. However, because we have you here, I have to ask, as an Edinburgh MSP, about the University of Edinburgh. I have received hundreds of emails from concerned students and staff there because it is proposing to make £140 million in cuts. What engagement and communications have you and other ministers had with the University of Edinburgh specifically to look at the similar pattern that is now unfolding for members of staff at that university?
The committee knows that there are challenges across the higher education sector. We can go on to talk about what some of those challenges are, if the committee would like, but I am conscious that you are taking evidence from someone else following my session.
There are challenges at the University of Edinburgh. We have been engaging with that university under the auspices of the SFC. Remember that the funding that we provided to the SFC was for institutions—plural—in relation to some of the challenges. We very much recognise that the University of Dundee at the current time has a unique challenge that in no small part relates to its own finances and decisions that it took. The University of Edinburgh is in a separate space, but it still has its own challenges, and its principal has set out some of those. We have been engaged with that institution via the SFC, which we will continue to engage with on how we can support the institution more broadly.
I know that staff are asking for that transparency and are not receiving it. Has there been a financial ask from the University of Edinburgh? If there is only £5 million left in the pot, will that be the total that is available for other institutions? The University of Edinburgh is not the only institution expressing financial concerns, as you have mentioned.
I am not aware of a financial ask from the University of Edinburgh. However, as I have said, I am meeting the SFC this afternoon, so I can interrogate that matter further with the SFC on Mr Briggs’s behalf.
In the update that I provide to the committee in relation to Mr Rennie’s line of questioning, I will be more than happy to include details about the University of Edinburgh as well.
That is helpful.
I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials very much for their evidence this morning.
I suspend the meeting for about 10 minutes before we move on to our next item of business.
10:51 Meeting suspended.Air ais
Attendance