Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is an interesting point that links to Mr Briggs’s comment about health. I think that, when I did my teacher training at Clydebank high school, we had campus cops in 2007. I am trying to remember how they were funded. They were obviously not funded from SAC, but I do not know what the budget line was at the time.

I know that Mr Greer has strong views about headteachers using PEF for campus cops, but some of them will have contrary views and they are empowered to choose to bring in such interventions.

I do not think that we have an explicit measurement in relation to income groupings. I set out some progress in relation to positive destinations, and we have seen progress in our primary schools, but I would like faster progress—it needs to happen at pace. However, we cannot ignore the context that you highlight, Mr Kidd, with regard to the pandemic.

When we talk about the Scottish attainment challenge, we consider school education in Scotland quite narrowly. However, I draw members’ attention to the gaps that are already emerging among our youngest children. There are speech and language delays among zero to two-year-olds in some of our poorest communities. We track that data in terms of educational performance. We know that the outcomes for those young people, who were not necessarily exposed to health visitors during lockdown in the same way that they might have been otherwise, are being impacted as a result, so we need to think again about how we provide them with support to drive progress.

I am sorry—I see that Alison Taylor wants to come in.

I responded to Alexander Stewart’s members’ business debate yesterday evening—some members of the committee were there, although I do not think that Ms Duncan-Glancy was. In that debate, I gave an update on the Government’s response, which is—as I said in responding to a point about the Audit Scotland report—that I want to engage with the Auditor General on that. We need to provide a substantive response to that report, including on the recommendation that the member referred to.

The member spoke about ASN in relation to spend. More broadly—again, I put this on the record in the debate last night—we see an improving picture in relation to the attainment of children with an identified additional support need. We know that, historically, many of those young people were prevented from attaining in the ways that they should have done because of the way in which our school system was structured, which often excluded them from mainstream education.

We have an inclusive education system. There was some challenge to that last night from Conservative members with regard to the presumption of mainstreaming—Ms Duncan-Glancy will have her own views on that—but I think that that is the strength of our education system in Scotland. The national discussion on education, the results of which were published in 2023 in “All Learners in Scotland Matter—national discussion on education: final report”, welcomed that as being unique to the Scottish education system. However, the challenge is always about delivery, and that is another point that came out in the debate last night.

National policy and local implementation are parts of all that I do as education secretary, whether it be on teacher numbers, ASN or responding to mental health challenges. This week, I answered a parliamentary question on that, which the member might be interested in. I cannot recall which member of the Education, Children and Young People Committee asked the question—it night have been Mr Briggs—but the response lays out additional support for learning spend per local authority. I encourage you to interrogate that data, because spending per pupil varies across the country.

I can protect ASN spend at the national level, but there is a level of local political decision making on how the funding gets to those who need it most, which is cited as a challenge in the Audit Scotland report.

The other challenge is transparency, which is why I welcome the report. I would like greater transparency in spend. I can talk about the record £1 billion of investment that is going to ASN, but we need to track how that spend is getting to those who need it most.

I do not have my diary in front of me, but I know that I and my officials are scheduled to meet the Auditor General in the coming weeks. I am more than happy to write to the committee with a fulsome update on that point.

It is not about Education Scotland.

It could change at stage 2; however, if we do not start the process now, we will have to lead an alternative appointments process, and I have been advised that that would be truncated, far less robust and more open to challenge.

I do not accept that at all, Ms Duncan-Glancy. In fact, the Government is moving forward with the appointments process in advance of the stage 2 amendments—that has been a point of discussion today, which I will reflect on—because we want the new body to have a functioning operational board in place as soon as the bill is passed. That is hugely important. We do not want the creation of qualifications Scotland to be delayed in any way, shape or form.

The reality is that, if we do not have the order passed today, it will not be possible to start making regulated board appointments to qualifications Scotland before its establishment. That issue is within the committee’s gift, but I need to make members aware of the effect of not passing the order today.

The stage 2 and stage 3 timescales will be well in advance of the recruitment process having been finalised. I am not clear why you think that the Government will not have to reflect that in the recruitment process—of course we will, because the committee and Parliament’s decisions on amendments will impact on how the board is constructed.

Absolutely. We will have to reflect on the amendments that are agreed by the Parliament at stage 2 and, potentially, stage 3, and reflect that in the board composition and the subsequent recruitment that takes place. You can take reassurance on that point.