Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not want to dwell on that, for obvious reasons. I am trying to look forward as much as back. You have a team of five in total—as I think that you mentioned—and you lead on all complaints, but you delegate the day-to-day operation of dealing with the processes around those complaints, and the details of investigations, to your team.

For clarity, has the investigations manual been in operation for some time, or is it new?

I have no further questions. I thank Mr Bruce for his evidence and for answering our questions this morning.

We are having a really interesting evidence session this morning. I was quite taken by Professor Ainscow who, it seems like a lifetime ago now, said that we should celebrate success. He was quite clear that there are lots of challenges still, but it is right to put some of the successes on the record.

We see that school leavers from low-income backgrounds in Scotland are doing better in relation to positive destinations, and, in the past few years, there has been a record narrowing of the gap between the most deprived and least deprived groups for positive destinations. That is to be celebrated, as is significant progress that has been made at national levels 5 and 6, although we would all agree that it is not fast enough.

However, I want to flip the question on its head and direct it at Professor Ainscow, given that I mentioned him. We know that progress has been made, but do we know how we achieved it, and do we know how we can achieve more?

That is helpful, but let me broaden it out and ask the other witnesses. The reason for asking the question was that we do not know the reason for the progress that has been made. It could be to do with exceptional careers advice for young people or teachers prepping young people for their exit exams, but it could also be to do with successes three, four or five years ago, because that is how long the attainment challenge has been going for and how long significant amounts of PEF money have been in the system.

Earlier in the meeting, we spoke about early learning. I want to give one example, then ask about how we measure the success of that. I will also widen the question out to other witnesses.

A few years ago, one of my local primary schools encountered significant issues with what they thought of as physical literacy and the health and wellbeing of young people. The school used PEF money to bring in a third sector local organisation to do physical exercises—not physical education but physical workshops—with the young people over a period of time. The school told me that that led to pupils showing much greater confidence in the classroom and there being better interaction between the young people. Spending that money led to success. That was done with pupils in primary 1, P2 and P3. Those kids are now going through the education system. The point is: we do not know our successes until we achieve them.

That takes me back to the question about measurement. How do we know the successes that we are baking into the system for the future? Is there a longitudinal study going on? Is there a cohort of young people who were there at the start of the attainment challenge and who have been monitored as they have gone through that over the years? That is an open question. I am conscious that schools will say that they are already doing all the things that we are talking about here today. They will say, “There’s great work going on. Just let us get on with it.” How do we measure that in a way that is not bureaucratic but that will build an evidence base for doing more?

Perhaps Emma Congreve could answer first.

That takes us to the nub of the difficulty. It is hard to monitor good work in schools. It is hard to get evidence or to track it without creating burdensome bureaucracy and a paperwork exercise. That is why I think that a cohort study would be welcome.

The Scottish Government’s review of the attainment challenge over the past five years shows that some schools are using the SHANARRI indicators—safe, healthy, achieving, nurtured, active, respected, responsible and included—as a light-touch way of measuring young people’s wellbeing. There is no systematic or nationwide approach to doing that.

My final question is an open one. Can any of the witnesses point us to a piece of research that has been done, or to some monitoring that could be done, that would follow young people from the early years and through their school career and would show or demonstrate the success or otherwise of PEF spending and attainment challenge funding?

We want to measure that in a way that is not burdensome. We want to learn what works for future generations. Poverty bites countries over generations. We want to learn what works and embed it in our system for the long term. Do any of the witnesses want to say something about measurements and outcomes that would not be bureaucratic?

Thank you very much.

I thank Paul O’Kane for bringing this cross-party group application to this morning’s meeting. I have been following the conversation and have read the paperwork really closely, and I think that it is right that we highlight the strain on the public purse and think about how we most effectively direct cash towards enhancing a network of essential provision. You made that point very well, and I also note your comments about tourism.

I was wondering about corporate Scotland and putting duties and obligations on our private companies, some of which are still doing okay in the current climate, to work in partnership with you and to commit to putting in changing places toilets, with child facilities and the like, and making them publicly available on the national network. Will there be a relationship with the private sector and corporate Scotland in that respect?

I thank Paul Sweeney for bringing his proposals for a cross-party group to the committee. I should declare an interest: it was a pleasure to go to the first meeting of the proposed cross-party group with him and others, and, should the group be successfully established, I will be its deputy convener. You might be able to take from that that I have good will towards the committee agreeing to recognise the group.

I will make one observation. Immigration is a reserved matter, but caring for people who have chosen to make their lives in Scotland—those who have come to our shores to flee violence or persecution, or for whatever other reason—is, of course, not a reserved matter. It is the core business of representing our constituents, irrespective of where they came from or how long they have been in Scotland. The group will go some way towards ensuring that the Parliament fulfils that important role.

Following some of the exchanges, I have been inspired to ask a question. I was taken by the inclusivity of your approach to the cross-party group in response to members who want other voices to be represented. You have made it clear that your door is always open, be it to other third-party groups or MSPs, and I commend you for that.

I also commend you for trying to be more efficient, and you have made some pretty important points about streamlining the approach to cross-party groups. I am not involved in it, but I know that there is a cross-party group on disability, and I have been looking at the list of non-MSP members on it. Given some of the considerations that have been floated—they are not concerns as such—it might be worth your while to keep that cross-party group aware of your work. I am not saying that it will necessarily want to work on the same issues, but it has a pretty strong network of groups through which it could disseminate information on the work of your own group. It is just a suggestion, Mr Simpson.