Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I cannot apply the—

I think that there are plans to include childminders in the process. As I intimated in my response to Mr Rennie, childminders are crucial to delivering our expansion of childcare. Much as we cannot do that without the PVI sector, childminders are essential in certain parts of Scotland—for example, in more rural locations—where families might not have access to the same provision from the local authority or the PVI sector. My understanding is that childminders will be included, unless Eleanor Passmore is going to correct me on that point.

If members want to ask about that later, I will pause there.

We need to complete the evaluation once we have completed the roll-out to primary 7. I do not want to prejudge at committee whether it will deliver on all your expectations, Mr Macpherson. I would be supportive of what you suggest, but I do not want us to decide before we have rolled out the full programme how we will evaluate it. However, you are right.

The point on childhood obesity is interesting. As Alison Taylor mentioned, there is limited evidence on that, but there is some evidence that free school meals can help to reduce childhood obesity, which is an additional challenge. It is important for us to consider more broadly that the investment is not just an educational one but a health investment.

The member makes an important point. There are undoubtedly challenges in subject specialism in secondary. As he knows, because he has asked me many written parliamentary questions on the topic, there are geographical challenges in getting subject specialists to go to certain parts of the country. As the committee is probably aware, we have a waiver scheme whereby, if you tick the box, as I did many moons ago, you are given a golden handshake by the Government to go and teach in any part of Scotland. I am keen to work with the strategic board for teacher education on how we can better encourage people to take up that scheme.

However, I recognise that the Government is investing in our teachers and their education. There are no tuition fees in Scotland for four years, and studying for a postgraduate qualification will not have any tuition fees attached to it. The probationary year is funded directly by central Government. That amounts to quite a lot of investment by the Government. Would it not be preferable for us to look again at how we can guarantee a level of employment for new teachers who are coming through the system? As part of that, we could look at geographical variation. It would also be a way of addressing Mr Kerr’s point about subject specialism, which is, as he said, a challenge in certain areas.