Seòmar agus comataidhean

Forgive me, Mr Greer, but that would have to be from outwith my budget. There is no additionality in my budget to provide what you have asked for. I have not had sight of the correspondence that you cited, so I will speak to officials to find out where that might be. I am more than happy to engage with the local authority. This is a very specific issue in regard to one local authority. You will understand that I cannot today announce additional funding that, bluntly, I do not have in the draft budget, but I will listen to the ask.

I recognise the challenges that local authorities have faced on capital, and particularly what happened to our capital allocation last year, which had a detrimental impact on the progress of a number of projects across the country, including the one that Mr Greer has cited. I am more than happy to engage with him and that local authority on how we can support it. I will get sight of that correspondence following this meeting and see what more we might be able to do in that space.

From my budget line, I do not think that there is additionality for LEIP. I think that there is a committed budget line for LEIP of £17 million for a number of projects.

There is significant funding in the budget, but I am happy to engage with Mr Greer on the specifics of the local issue that he has raised.

I fully expect that, in this new era of co-operation between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, an answer will be forthcoming. I am sure that there is just a slight delay due to the Christmas recess, and I expect that the response will flow to me and my office very soon.

It is important to recognise that there has been a £13.2 million increase. That was a direct ask from the sector.

Of course we discussed free school meals, and you will be aware, convener, of the costings from the Scottish Futures Trust, which put the cost for universal roll-out at more than £250 million in further additionality. We do not have that additionality, but we have been provided—

I am more than happy to write to you, following this evidence session, to give you further detail about that.

Of course, it is not the responsibility of only the education and skills portfolio to eradicate child poverty. We had a debate in the chamber yesterday, led by the First Minister and the cabinet secretary for social security, with regard to the implications of budget decisions that are taken elsewhere, not least for the work that we have undertaken on the Scottish child payment. We know that, as a result of that investment by the Scottish Government, child poverty levels are lower in Scotland than in other parts of the UK.

From my perspective as education secretary, we must not consider child poverty as being siloed to one portfolio area. I am taking a number of interventions within the education and skills portfolio, which I am sure Mr Dey will speak to in respect of his responsibilities. In relation to school education, I am particularly focused on closing the poverty-related attainment gap. That work is being driven forward by the Scottish attainment challenge funding and, in this budget, by additionality coming from the pupil equity fund, which is starting to show real progress in relation to the gap narrowing.

It will complete the manifesto commitment, as far as I understand it, and the commitment that we made in 2020-21 to invest £60 million for play park renewal. This is the end of it.

The member raises an important point. We also have aspirations around two-year-olds, with which the member will be familiar. It is worth pointing out—I do not know whether the committee has looked at this in detail—that uptake of the provision for two-year-olds varies, so Ms Don-Innes is working closely with local authorities and COSLA to drive uptake for eligible two-year-olds.

The member is right to say that the birth rate is falling and that that will have implications not just for ELC but for schools. We have done some forecasting work in that regard to look at teacher numbers and the future needs of the sector. I am mindful, however, that, in relation to ASN, there is a requirement—particularly post-pandemic, as we have heard—for additionality in the system, so we are thinking about ways in which we can work better with COSLA specifically on workforce matters.

In my opening comments, I made a point about the establishment of the education assurance board, which has been key to the agreement that we have reached with COSLA on teacher numbers and on funding for ASN. In my view, that work with COSLA would sit somewhere in the workforce planning stream, which is about not just the ELC workforce but the teaching workforce and ensuring that we have a workforce that is fit for the future and meets the needs of the sector.

Andrew Watson may want say more on the specifics of ELC. I think that the education assurance board gives us a better opportunity to work hand in glove with COSLA—let us not forget that councils employ most, if not all, of our ELC staff—in order to ensure that we have an education system in ELC and in teaching that meets the needs of our pupils and our younger children.

I will come in briefly on that point, if I may. Mr Adam made an important point, which is why our pathways programme in the senior phase now looks dramatically different from what it might have been when he and I were at secondary school, which is some years ago now.

We are now seeing, certainly in last year’s exam results, record numbers of pupils undertaking vocational and technical qualifications. Our schools are now diversifying their curriculum offer, and colleges are fundamental to that. On the point that Mr Adam made about plumbers and people going into trades, there is now much better partnership working between colleges and schools, which has really improved the number of pathways that are open to our young people.

In addition, there is a real opportunity through education reform to join up work further; I am sure that we will discuss that in more detail as the relevant legislation comes forward.