Chamber and committees

I state that headteachers must not have that uncertainty: they must know that the funding will flow in those four-year cycles. As far as I am concerned, in relation to my responsibilities, headteachers should and must have that certainty. The premise behind attaching pupil equity funding to four-yearly funding cycles was about giving certainty—giving headteachers the opportunity to plan and recruit on a non-temporary basis, for example. Any movement away from that would be to the detriment of our young people.

Obviously, I shared with the committee—it would have been late last night—the most up-to-date report that we have on that. When PEF was first introduced and sat more generally as a programme, it was meant to be additional to the system. As time has progressed, the system has evolved and, to be blunt, we are living through very challenging financial times, so there is, within our school system, probably now a degree of reliance on that funding structure. We need to be cognisant of that. At the start, PEF was meant to bring additionality, and I think that it still brings a level of additionality. However, I think that our schools depend on it now and that any movement away from it in the future would be very challenging.

One of the biggest privileges in my job as cabinet secretary is that, pretty much weekly, I go into schools where I see the impact that that spend is having. If you speak to any headteacher—as, I am sure, you all do in your constituencies—they will tell you that the funding is making a real difference where it matters in our schools. It empowers our headteachers and allows additionality to be brought in through additional staff members or people from external organisations—for example, third sector organisations that provide mental health support to our young people. We need to be very clear that the additionality that PEF and SAC originally provided have become intrinsic to our school offer, and I am very keen that we protect that additionality in the system.

Going back to Mike Russell’s time, I am fairly certain that he was cabinet secretary in 2014, which was when we reclassified the FE sector. The status of the college sector is unlike that of our executive agencies and therefore the policy of having no compulsory redundancies does not apply in the same way that it would have done previously.

In 2014?

I thank Mr Rennie for his question. I have not seen the article in question, but I would be happy to write to the member and the committee with more detail. As I understand it, councils will be able to reprofile their planned £7 million contribution to the redress scheme in 2024-25. They will still have to maintain their agreed overall contribution of £100 million, with the Scottish Government ensuring that sufficient savings are available in the interim. As such, the decision will not have a detrimental impact on operation of the scheme.

Nonetheless, I very much recognise the sentiment and the importance of the member’s question. As I have intimated to the member, I would be more than happy to write to him directly on the matter, or to the committee more broadly, because I recognise the sensitivities in this instance.

I thank the member for her question. As she has intimated, the four-year settlement for PEF is hugely important, as it gives headteachers certainty in planning—for example, in hiring staff. It is important to recognise that that additionality has helped us to make progress in closing the poverty-related attainment gap.

In relation to the teachers’ settlement deal, it is not my understanding that PEF was reprofiled as part of that arrangement, but I would defer to officials on that, because I was not in post at that time. I have not seen the evidence to which you allude, but, more generally, it is my understanding, as cabinet secretary, that PEF absolutely remains a focus of the Government in terms of the delivery model and will remain on a four-year basis until the end of the cycle.

I can understand what Mr Rennie has outlined, but I do not agree with it. He has suggested that I can enforce in our college sector the policy of having no compulsory redundancies. That power is not currently at my disposal.

I hear the concern that has been expressed on the broader matter of transition funding. As Ms Somerville will have done when she was before the committee—she might have also done so in the chamber—I ask Mr Rennie to say where else in the Scottish Government’s budget that funding should have come from. At the time, it was made clear to the teaching unions that it would have to come from the education budget; that was part of the settlement that was agreed with our teachers. The suggestion is that we should find additional money for college lecturers. From where in the education budget should I take that funding?

Undoubtedly, inflationary pressures are having an impact on our budget, as I alluded to in my answer to Mr Kerr. Mr Kerr did not think that it was an answer, but I attempted to provide a response. Our money is not going as far as it used to, and I think that members around the table accept that.

Scotland has more generous free school meal provision than any other part of the UK. The next phase of that is expansion to primaries 6 and 7, starting with children whose families receive the Scottish child payment. Inflationary pressures are being felt in relation to decisions taken elsewhere. I am not going to make political points, but we are doing everything that we can to mitigate those pressures. As the member will know, free school meals provision is a manifesto commitment. Quite aside from that, it is the right thing to do.

In my view, the policy will help to improve attainment and how children engage in the education system. Some evidence suggests that it can even help to stymie childhood obesity.

There are lots of good reasons why we should invest in free school meals. Rising food costs are impacting families across Scotland. We provide £169 million a year to support universal free school meal provision in primaries 1 to 5, as well as for the roll-out for primary 6 pupils to those who are eligible in secondary 6. We continue to support that policy. It will be challenging, but there is a commitment to deliver it and I assure the committee that we are working towards it.

I am happy to write to the committee—or to ask Mr Dey to do so—in answer to Ms Thomson’s question and to share with you a bit more about the progress that has been made as well as the specifics that have been raised.

It is not my understanding that there is new money in the education budget to look at how this will work. We need to look at what we are currently spending, which is significant, and ensure that that funding works more effectively for our young people.