Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I outlined in response to Pam Duncan-Glancy, we are making progress, which is shown by the achievement of curriculum for excellence levels data that was published in December.

I would like us to be making more progress but, undoubtedly, a number of challenges have disrupted progress. Not least of those was the pandemic. We might come on to talk about that later. There are real challenges in our schools post-pandemic because—to be blunt—young people were out of formal education for the best part of two years. That is borne out in attendance statistics: some young people are really struggling to get back into formal education. It is also borne out in attainment. We need to be mindful of that.

However, we need to look again at how we can drive improvements in our schools. Just before Christmas, in a statement in the chamber, I provided an update on the national improvement framework and how that work will push forward some of the improvements that are needed in our schools. Subject to agreement on Parliamentary business, I also plan to bring forward another debate and to make a statement to identify some of the actions that we will take on improvement.

However, I will also reflect on a point that, I think, Jackie Dunbar made. Some of the work on the attainment challenge goes back to 2015 and 2016—nearly 10 years ago. When the funding was first envisaged, we would not necessarily have thought that headteachers would use it to pay for free breakfasts or similar interventions. What we have seen in our schools is the impact of austerity over the past decade. That funding, which was meant to be additional to budgets, has now become central to how we fund our schools because of the erosion of some services as a result of austerity policies. Schools are having to fill the gaps.

I have been open and honest about that. It is undoubtedly having an impact on how we make progress in closing the gap. However, progress is being made. I would like more progress to be made, which is why we have introduced the national improvement framework update.

Members might be aware that there was some commentary on maths and numeracy over the recess period. That issue is why, last year, we appointed the first national numeracy specialist, who is a former maths teacher and headteacher. They are leading on that improvement work. It is also why we have a radical approach to school education reform, which is part of the answer to closing the poverty-related attainment gap.

However, I go back to the convener’s point at the start of the evidence session: this is not all about education, and we must not narrowly think about it in that way—if we do, we will lose the opportunity of other funding streams. Further action that the Government is taking—for example, on mitigating the two-child cap—is fundamental to closing the poverty-related attainment gap. Additionally, the Scottish child payment helps to lift more children out of poverty. All such policies need to be brought together, which is why the convener’s opening question about having a cross-Government approach to eradicating child poverty was such a salient point, and it relates to your point about closing the poverty-related attainment gap.

I do agree. I was in the chamber and heard the exchange that you have cited. The budget sets out more than £656 million in the next financial year to support colleges’ delivery of high-quality education and skills. The college sector is a hugely strong part of Scotland’s education system and offers a breadth of opportunity that other parts of that system do not necessarily offer. It makes a really strong offer.

Regarding the budget settlement, the 2025-26 budget sees a £13.2 million uplift in the net college resource allocation. If we include the non-profit-distributing budget allocation uplift of £2.3 million, there is a total college resource uplift of 2.3 per cent compared to the previous year’s budget, so we have seen an increase in college resource spending. I also place on record the real strength of the college sector. I see much of that in my job as cabinet secretary, and the minister also engages regularly with the college sector.

Are you suggesting that the Government review its policy on free tuition? If so, that is not a position that we will be able to support.

Yes, although you will understand, convener, that I am not the cabinet secretary with responsibility for driving those plans—that is Ms Somerville.

For reasons of transparency about our progress in that regard, that is an issue that we would wish to share with the committee and with Parliament.

Mr Rennick may wish to say something.

We met with the sector in late November, ahead of the budget, to hear from it, and that was a direct ask from it, and that has been publicised in the press.

That has come from the sector, and we have responded. It is not just the places, because additionality has been provided to reach that 3.5 per cent number.

I very much agree on the importance of Dundee university—I should say that as a Fife MSP. There is a joint campus in Kirkcaldy for nursing, so there is close working with the university. A number of my constituents study at the university and, as an Angus MSP, that will be exactly the same for Mr Dey.

I do not diminish the importance of the university, particularly its geographic importance. We have talked a lot about the international student population, but the university as an institution is also hugely important to those who live in Angus, Fife and the surrounding areas. We will do all that we can to facilitate support via the auspices of the SFC.

Mr Marra quoted some figures, but I do not have the details of those in front of me. I do not know whether those have been shared with Mr Dey. We need to be very careful about speculating, as Mr Dey has outlined. However, as Mr Dey alluded to, we will be absolutely transparent with the committee with regard to the report—or the action plan—that comes forward. It is important for members, particularly for local members, to have sight of the detail and an understanding of what happened. Ministers also want to be reassured in relation to that detail.

I accept the member’s challenge. On a point of principle, though, the minister and I will not agree with him about tuition fees—

I think that the committee will be aware that I wrote to the UK Government on that issue on 21 November. If the committee is not aware of that correspondence, I am happy to share details of it. The UK Government has not yet responded to it.

Of course, it is not just colleges and universities that will be impacted by the national insurance changes. We have forecasts on the issue, which are all initial estimates of how the changes might impact on my portfolio area. For children and social care, the figure is £4 million. For early learning and childcare, it is potentially £5 million. For universities, it is £45 million—although universities are excluded, they will, of course, need additional assistance, and my letter seeks to address that. For colleges, the estimate is sitting at around £20 million, although we are working with the Scottish Funding Council on some of the figures. Those are estimates, because we do not yet know how the UK Government will implement the changes to national insurance contributions. We do not yet have certainty on that, and the issue is creating a lot of uncertainty across the education sector.

I realise that your question is on colleges and universities, but the changes have potentially dire implications in other parts of my portfolio. We are seeking clarity from the UK Government. This is not just a matter for my portfolio; it is an issue across Government. I think that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government is currently leading on that work across Government. I am particularly concerned about the implications for the education and skills portfolio, because the changes, which we did not know were coming, will potentially have really serious implications for a number of areas of our education system.

Without clarity, it is difficult for us to give any further certainty beyond where we are at the current time. As and when I receive a response from the UK Government—I should point out that my letter was sent on 21 November—I will be happy to share that with the committee. The issue is very concerning, given some of the challenges that the changes will create.

Neil Rennick might want to speak about the broader work that we have undertaken.

In my negotiations with the cabinet secretary for finance, I asked for additionality for ASN and additionality for teacher numbers—again, an ask that was delivered on. I am pretty clear that this is a good settlement for education and skills, and it sees a 3 per cent increase in real terms for the portfolio more broadly. I hope that that will be welcomed.