Seòmar agus comataidhean

At that point, some learning was reflected in the approach that we took. I accept the convener’s point—of course the Government needs to learn lessons on what has worked and what has not. In my initial contribution, I highlighted the PEF sampling work, which has been really important. I was hoping to share with you today some of the detail on that, but I will write to the committee with more detail in due course.

I see a note from Ms Taylor—

I am not going to announce today a review of how we measure positive destinations, but I take the member’s point. SDS carries out the tracking for us in that regard. We track the longer-term trajectory of young people when they leave school, at intervals of three months and then nine months.

It might interest Mr Briggs to look at the data set from three months out then nine months out. There is a disconnect—we accept that. Beyond school, there are things that can be undertaken by Government, but other agencies are often involved in the delivery of support to a young person in that period of their life.

We also introduced the annual participation measure as part of the national improvement framework. That gives us a greater ability to measure the number of 16 to 19-year-olds who are in school, or perhaps at college or university, and gives us a truer picture of their progress across time.

There has been a slight increase, of 0.8 per cent, in participation between 2023 and 2024 for those in quintile 1—that is, those in the 20 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland. In 2024, there was an 8.2 per cent gap in participation by 16 to 19-year-olds living in the 20 per cent most deprived and 20 per cent least deprived areas; that is the narrowest gap on record.

I take the member’s point, and it might be that some of his suggestions in relation to positive destinations are looked at in the round as part of the education reform that is more in Mr Dey’s space. Nevertheless, I will take that away from today’s meeting, convener. The member raises an important point, which has been rehearsed in the chamber previously.

Nonetheless, I go back, in the round, to my original response to Mr Rennie—which I know that he does not like—that 95.7 per cent of our young people are now in a positive destination. That is to be welcomed and celebrated. These young people were being let down by the education system before we started giving them that extra support, tracking, advice and encouragement. I think that we have completely turned around the way in which we support some young people.

To reiterate David Gregory’s point, not so long ago, in terms of tracking, it was university or nothing after school—there was maybe a job, or college, but there was often a gap. We have become far better at tracking that progress across time. We can undoubtedly improve—I accept that. I think that that is the point that the member makes.

However, I go back to the comments from Gillian Campbell-Thow, the headteacher who was on the radio with Mr Briggs. I confess that a colleague tipped me off to that interview: I do not routinely sit listening to the radio waiting for Mr Briggs to come on. Gillian Campbell-Thow said in response to Mr Briggs last week that

“We need to look at the currency of these qualifications before we start saying that you’ll be doing a disservice to children in having 15 per cent of all school leavers leave without anything.”

Her point was really about looking at the totality of achievements.

I think—I have reflected on this with officials—that some of our measurements are not showing the totality of the picture of the achievements of all our young people.

You are speaking hypothetically, Mr Greer, but I share your anxiety in that regard. We would not be able to give board members certainty about their role during the transitional period in which the SQA finds itself in as the bill makes its way through the Parliament.

That sits with the line of questioning that Ms Duncan-Glancy pursued earlier. The Government will have to reflect and respond appropriately to the amendments on the recruitment process. If the committee chooses not to pass the order, which is in the committee’s gift, it will simply delay that process and risk some of the appointments becoming unregulated, which speaks to Mr Greer’s point.

On accreditation specifically, I remind the member that only 20 staff are employed in the SQA accreditation team, so if there is a suggestion about different board composition for accreditation, we need to be mindful of the number of staff in the part of the organisation that we are talking about. The Government will have to reflect on the amendments that are agreed to at stages 2 and 3. I have given the committee a reassurance today that I will do that. I have to do that, but I also want to do that as cabinet secretary, because it will provide for a stronger piece of legislation that will have more political goodwill around it, and it will deliver the outcomes that we want to see for our young people.

I am at a loss as to how the committee can support the general principles of the bill at stage 1 and then not seek to work with the Government on amendments. In fact, I think that I have met most of the members who are at the table today and there is a political willingness from most parties to work with the Government on improving the bill to get it to where it needs to be, and I accept that.

Fundamentally, however, if the member’s line of questioning was accurate, I would have expected the committee to reject what the Government was proposing out of hand at stage 1. I think that there is a consensus in the room that we need to replace the SQA. I think there is also an expectation from the public that we deliver on that—but how we do that is in the gift of the Parliament. The order before you is a matter for the committee.

I believe that we have made real progress and that there are dedicated teachers out there today—we saw that in the 2022 report—who are making a real difference and improving the life chances of Scotland’s children and young people, including some of the most vulnerable.

I go back to the points that I made at the start. You cannot measure the SNP against a point back in 2016 and ignore the global context since then. The challenge is not unique to Scotland: it is being faced in other parts of the United Kingdom and globally. We must not set aside the impact of the pandemic, which did not allow us to make as much progress as we would have expected by this point.

I accept that. The convener has made political points, so I also accept that my party has been in power throughout that period and that progress has happened on my party’s watch and is to be welcomed.

I accept the member’s challenge regarding the point at which the Scottish attainment challenge was launched, but I cannot detract from the impacts that the pandemic and austerity are having on our schools. I go back to the points that I made my original contribution. To be blunt, headteachers are now using PEF money to plug gaps that the welfare state should be providing for and the use of austerity policies in relation to benefits has harmed and damaged some of our most vulnerable families. Headteachers now find themselves in the invidious position of having to help vulnerable families while also thinking about educational interventions. They have to make choices.

I confirmed that SAC and PEF will continue—although what comes next is obviously in the gift of the next Government—but we need to think about the totality of school funding and how that can be sustained in the future.

We do, because that was specified at stage 1. The member has a view in relation to trade union membership—

Indeed. It is the case that the data shows record improvements—

Do you mean tomorrow’s meeting?