Seòmar agus comataidhean

Things could change as far as the board’s composition is concerned. I hope that you hear my acceptance on that point. However, I have been provided with advice on the risks of our not having an operational board if the draft order that is before the committee is not passed today. It would delay the process that needs to be undertaken, to which Ms Hicks has spoken.

Nico made a hugely important point. In the stage 1 report there was acceptance that a board would need to be created. There is a requirement for the order to be introduced to allow us to do so. I take on board the convener’s and Ms Duncan-Glancy’s points about stages 2 and 3. We have given a reassurance today that the Government will have to reflect that in our recruitment processes, but that is a normal part of a Government establishing a new NDPB. On the other hand, considering an alternative approach would leave the Government open to the risk of having to run a truncated recruitment process that might not be acceptable to the Ethical Standards Commissioner. We would need to speak to the commissioner about that.

There would be an inherent risk in our not moving forward with the order, because we would not be able to make the required appointments, notwithstanding that the Government would have to—and will—listen to amendments at stages 2 and 3. This is about timescales in establishing the new body. If the committee were to vote down the order today, or not move on it, that would delay the appointments process, and potentially delay the establishment of qualifications Scotland as a body. Members should be aware of that real inherent risk this morning.

Mr Mason, I am not surprised by some of the questioning, although I am not sure that I share your views about my former union—the EIS.

This is a normal order, and such orders are required when making board appointments. I accept that there is a diverse range of views around the committee table in relation to board appointments, and the Government will have to reflect that in its recruitment processes. If we do not move now, there will be a delay to appointment processes. That would be concerning, because that would impact on the delivery model that is associated with qualifications Scotland.

The member spoke about the Scottish Fiscal Commission. I also reflect my responsibilities, in a previous life, as Minister for Transport, when we routinely appointed board members to Scottish Rail Holdings Limited. It will be of interest to Ms Duncan-Glancy to note that there was railway trade union representation on the SRH board, which was an ask at that time.

As I said, this is a normal order. I go back to my concern about delaying the process, but that is a matter for the committee to decide on today; it is not for me.

Nico McKenzie-Juetten also highlighted the point that, if we took a truncated approach, it might lead to a scenario in which some of the board appointments would be unregulated, which would be highly unusual.

As education secretary, it is always very difficult for me to comment on specific circumstances. If you want to share with me details of the school or the local authority, I will be happy to ask officials to speak to them directly about that.

On the general observation, we know that ASN can sometimes be a hindrance to attendance if the necessary support is not in place. In the debate last night, I spoke about a constituent of mine who had to take her local authority to a tribunal. It ruled in her favour, but the fight to get support that she is legally entitled to under the ASL legislation was an inordinate pressure on her and her family.

You mentioned school buildings. It is difficult for me to comment on them as they belong to local authorities, but no impediment should be put in place to a young person accessing their education. The legislation sets out that it is a legal requirement to send your child or young person to school. I do not want to take away from the challenge that that presents for a number of parents, as has been the case post-pandemic in particular. We want to have a really supportive approach to helping parents with that. Lots of approaches have been used with PEF, which I have spoken about, and headteachers use various approaches.

It is quite difficult for me to speak to the specifics that you have mentioned without knowing a bit more about the background. If you want to share more with me, either after the session or in writing, I will be more than happy to meet you and the parents in order to hear a bit more and to engage with the local authority in question. We want those young people to be in school.

We need attainment to improve across the piece—that is the focus of today’s evidence session—but attainment is particularly important for young people with an identified additional support need. We want them to be in education, and we want no barriers to be in their way to accessing it. I am happy to engage with you more on the issue.

Convener, I am not sure that, in 2016, even you could have anticipated a global pandemic.

We are making progress, and I want to come on to talk about that progress.

I think that you are asking me whether there are things that we could have done differently.

That measure tells us about the totality of the progress that has been made. I go back to how positive destinations were tracked in 2009-10, when a cohort of young people were leaving school with nothing.

The stretch aims have been important to changing our funding model and getting local authorities to buy into the process. We have talked about the challenge and the friction between local and central Government on delivering on the ambition, and the stretch aims tied the funding to delivering improvements. As I mentioned in response to a question from Mr Rennie, if they were achieved, we would see the attainment gap narrow by 30 per cent by 2026, which would be welcome.

I am told that most local authorities are on track to achieve or exceed their stretch aims. Mr Gregory might want to say a bit more about the work of his team. However, I remember being in one of my first meetings when I was appointed as education secretary—Alison Taylor and David Gregory might remember this—and talking about the substantial work that they had to undertake with local authorities to get them to agree to the stretch aims, which was evidence of the partnership approach that we have to have in Scottish education. It has been a success.

I will allow David Gregory to talk about some of the work that his team does to provide support at the local level. We appreciate that this cannot just be a one-way street with local government. We have to give it that additionality and support.