Chamber and committees

I do not accept Mr Rennie’s illustration of what happened prior to my time in office.

Mr Rennie asks why we wanted to close the poverty-related attainment gap. Surely the answer should be obvious to him: we want to ensure that children who live in poverty attain and go on to positive destinations.

Good.

In my response to Ms Duncan-Glancy, I mentioned the real challenge that we are facing. That challenge has not grown up overnight; it has been happening over the time that Ms Maguire and I have been MSPs, and, indeed, the situation with colleges probably predates 2016.

We need to be mindful of the challenge with regard to industrial action. When I was before the committee last September, I think, Mr Rennie asked me about this very issue and the role of ministers in this respect. I am extremely limited in the role that I can play in industrial disputes in the colleges sector, given their independence from Government, but I recognise the challenge here and the on-going disputes, which I will not comment on.

At last week’s evidence session, Mr Kerr raised with Mr Dey the recommendations that were made in the Strathesk Re:solutions report back in 2022, and that report, I think, offers an opportunity to drive some of the change that we need to see here. We need to reset some of the agenda in relation to colleges and their importance in our education system, because I worry that some of that has been forgotten about in our thinking on school education. Indeed, the member has highlighted some of the opportunities that exist, particularly in work with our schools. Some of our colleges do fantastic work with our schools, and we need to quantify that impact in a better way and support the sector.

Colleges Scotland has formally responded to the Strathesk Re:solutions report, and it is meeting trade unions to look at next steps and is working with them collectively to support the continued success of national bargaining. I think that that offers a route forward.

That said, we need to inject a bit of urgency into this, particularly post-pandemic. Post-pandemic, the education sector is under an extraordinary amount of pressure; it is expected in all its guises—whether that be early learning and childcare, schools, colleges or universities—to mop up all society’s ills and solve everything. However, it cannot do that alone, and we need think more pragmatically about how we quantify the impacts of our education spend. The outcomes for our young people in our colleges are fundamental to that drive, and resolving some of the on-going dispute—for obvious reasons, I do not want to comment on the specifics of that—will be part of that, too.

Then, as you heard from Mr Dey last week, we can move forward with these recommendations and try to bring more sustainability to the sector. Yes, that might well look like flexibilities, but it might also look like education reform if we give colleges a driving seat in delivering some of the opportunities that I think reform will offer the sector.

Yes, absolutely. Post-pandemic, our schools are being expected to mop up quite a lot of society’s challenges. We have heard from Mr Rennie about the poverty-related attainment gap. That gap exists and, although it is not all of schools’ creation, we expect schools to mop up all of the challenge. We need a much more holistic approach, and part of that relates to how we budget across the Scottish Government. We need a much more holistic understanding of the inputs that we, as a Government, are putting in to try to disrupt the attainment gap, because we cannot expect our schools to do everything.

I joked earlier about my being a lightning rod for political challenge. In part, that is because schools are now expected to do so much more, even compared to when Ms Duncan-Glancy and I were at school. When I go into schools and see the extra things that they are doing for our young people, I am blown away. Yes, part of that is funded by the additionality from PEF and SAC, but part of it is a societal expectation that, as a teacher put it to me a few weeks ago, schools will step into the breach where other services can step back. School is a constant in a child’s life.

I understand and agree with Ms Duncan-Glancy’s point. We need to reconsider how we can pull other services into supporting schools, because they cannot do it alone, and we are expecting more and more from them.

I read some of the evidence that the committee took from Professor Humes. I met him in the summer after my appointment, because he has expressed many views on the Scottish Government’s performance on a variety of different topics over the years. His points about cosy conformity are quite accurate. There is not a lot of grit or challenge in the system. There is lots of grit directed my way, because I am the lightning rod for grit—I am the cabinet secretary—but I refer back to my response to questions from other members in the previous committee meeting about accountability at the local authority level. We seem to have forgotten that local authorities have such accountability, so we need to take the opportunity to reset some of that through the Verity house agreement.

I talked about the accountability framework in my response to a member earlier. We need challenge and we need grit. Sometimes, in Scottish education, we become reliant on hearing from the same people about the same topics. I make that observation as a previous member of the committee and having observed some of the witnesses who have already appeared. We need to hear fresh voices.

We also need to hear from teachers. During the previous parliamentary session, when Ross Greer and I were on your predecessor committee, we would hold private evidence sessions with teachers. I do not know whether the committee has explored that idea. I recall that the committee was keen to come to my behaviour summits, but teachers would not feel comfortable if they thought that their views were being recorded for purposes such as a parliamentary debate. They benefit from private time with politicians listening to them.

The first school visit that I undertook when I took up my role was to the school in Edinburgh where I taught. I asked my officials, Edinburgh council representatives and the headteacher to leave the room so that I could talk to the staff honestly about what was going on. That really helped to inform some of my thinking in the early days after I took up my post.

Professor Humes is absolutely right that there is a cosy conformity. We need a bit more challenge. I welcome the challenge, because it is a huge part of the job of being a cabinet secretary, but we also need to ensure that the critical voices in the system, such as that of Professor Humes, are listened to and not managed.

We cannot reach a consensus with the critique of Scottish education, and that is okay. However, to drive improvement we need to be a bit more honest about that, because, as per Willie Rennie’s point, consensus has delivered the status quo. Perhaps the challenge around some of the deliverability is how we unpick some of that.

The £12 an hour—

The sustainable rates review gives us an opportunity to do that. Bluntly, we need the PVI sector to be operational in relation to how we deliver our childcare expansion. Willie Rennie and I have talked about that previously.

The £12 an hour commitment is important. The draft budget provides local authorities with an additional £16 million to pay for staff in the PVI sector who will deliver funded ELC from April this year. That demonstrates our commitment to the fair work agenda, but it also demonstrates our commitment to recognising the challenges in the PVI sector. We have discussed that previously. Willie Rennie might think that it is not enough, and the sector might think that it is not enough. Okay—I would like to hear from where in my budget the additional money should come.

I accept the premise of Willie Rennie’s question. My point was that I am dealing with an extraordinarily challenging budget settlement, as are all cabinet secretaries, as a result of an unfair allocation from the UK Government. We can have a debate about that another day, but let us look at what I have for my portfolio.

The additional money to pay £12 an hour that has flowed to my portfolio as a result of our commitment is to be welcomed. I recognise that some local authorities might pay more than that, but there has been significant investment—from the First Minister, actually—in that specific commitment. It helps to bridge the gap between the PVI sector and the local authority sector. It also means an increase of about £2,000 a year for eligible staff who work full time. That is to be welcomed.

I recognise that challenges will remain. The sustainable rates review gives us an opportunity to reset some of that.

However, we need to work with the PVI sector on delivery of what that will look like. I have heard some of the critique around that, including from Mr Rennie today, but the reality is that there is nothing in my budget to meet the extra additional money that is being asked for. If we need to look again at the offer, additional money will need to come from somewhere else, as it cannot come from my budget. I say again that we are going into a round of budget negotiations in the chamber and there will be opportunities for Opposition parties to put forward suggestions.

I hear Willie Rennie’s point that it is my problem, as cabinet secretary. I accept that. However, we have taken direct action in the budget to support the PVI sector. Such action had not been taken previously. I hope that Willie Rennie recognises that.

And he has done so.