 Gwesellaf, i'w fgoddy i'w ydwg y 5 ysgrifennu'r ffordd a'i'r wyffordd beithio na'i'r Cymru yn 2021, yn gynghent. Gwesellaf, i'w fgoddy i'w ydweud ni'n bywg hynny, ganallwch chi'n credu'r ffórmaidd i'r rhaid i'w ffordd. I'w fgoddy i'w y domain, ac i'w fawr i'o gweithio i'w Fyrnu Llywodraeth a'u dda'r Gelf, i'w hi fawr i'i'r gweithio i'r Fyrnu Llywodraeth, i'w gweithio i'r Graham Logan, director of learning for the Scottish Government. This is actually the first time that we've met with the cabinet secretary, so we're delighted to have you with us and looking forward to a long and happy time together, working together in this important area. I understand that the cabinet secretary intends to make a short opening statement and then we're going to go straight to questions. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning. It is a pleasure to be able to appear in front of the committee today to discuss my priorities for education for the new session. I'm deeply honored to be serving as cabinet secretary for education and skills and delighted to return to the portfolio after being a junior minister previously. Whilst the latest data shows thankfully that cases have been coming down, we do, of course, remain in the midst of a pandemic and I don't underestimate how challenging this continues to be for everyone and I remain acutely aware of the impact it's having on the lives of our young people and on the education skills sector as a whole. From the outset, we've been working to protect children and young people from the worst impacts of Covid-19 and to support them to recover where they have been affected. We know that some learners will have suffered adverse consequences, whether it's in terms of their health and wellbeing or their attainment. We will continue to address those impacts and I'm determined that every child and young person in Scotland will have the opportunity to fulfil their potential as they progress through the education system and onto positive destinations. Yesterday, the Scottish Government published an education recovery at key actions in next steps document, which has been developed with input from our partners, including young people. It outlines our on-going response to the impacts of the pandemic and sets out some of the key next steps that we will take to address them. The document also draws on advice from our international council of education advisers, among other things they have highlighted that the pandemic reaffirms equity as the defining issue of our time. That is why we remain committed to closing the poverty-related attainment gap in children of all ages, a core part of our wider national mission to eradicate child poverty. While we continue to make good progress with this long-term ambition, I recognise that there is more to do and that the needs of individual learners should be central to our reforms. That is why we will provide £1 billion over this Parliament to close the poverty-related attainment gap and support education recovery, including a refresh of the Scottish attainment challenge programme from 2022-23. That will empower schools, support education recovery plans and help to improve outcomes for children and young people. This autumn, I will set out to Parliament how we will refresh the attainment challenge and how that will support faster, more consistent progress to be made for learners living right across the country. Ensuring that our education system delivers for Scotland's children has arguably never been more important, which is why I have committed to a number of important reforms in this Parliament. I confirmed in June that the SQA will be replaced and I am minded to create a single specialist agency for curriculum and assessment. Reform of the education system aims to reduce variation in the outcomes achieved by learners and to ensure the best possible quality of support and challenge for our school environment. What comes next is a period of change, but it is change made in partnership in order to improve, to achieve more and to deliver for all of Scotland's learners. Whilst there is work to be done, I am proud of what has been accomplished this year despite all the challenges. For example, since 1 August, we have delivered our flagship commitment to offer 1140 funded hours of early learning and childcare to all eligible two, three and four-year-olds. We have ambitious plans for this Parliament to expand early learning and childcare to one and two-year-olds, starting with children from low-income households. We will also deliver on our commitment to build a system of wraparound childcare that provides care before and after school all year round. The changes that we are bringing in for young people will pay dividends over their lifetime and help to improve outcomes for their families. Thank you once again for the opportunity to set out the current situation in the sector, and I look forward to working with the committee on those issues in future years. Thank you for that. We will move straight to the member's questions. I want to ask you about the poverty-related attainment gap. What lessons have you learned from the 2020-21 session, and what plans do you have to incorporate in those lessons going forward? What things are you considering for the longer-term strategies at the moment? There is a lot that we can learn from what has happened under the most difficult circumstances. As I said in my opening remarks, one of the issues that has been very clear to all of us, and, indeed, with the Government's equity audit, is that the pandemic has affected people and children and young people in particular in different ways. One of the areas that we are very keen to move on is to ensure that we are moving further and faster with how we are dealing with attainment overall. As we are looking at the refreshed Scottish attainment challenge funding, I am determined that that looks at a number of issues. One of those will be the variation in outcomes for children and young people across Scotland. Variation in the way that things are done is a good thing, because we should absolutely not have a one-size-fits-all education policy. I think that everyone who has an interest when our children and young people and their achievement in attainment should be concerned about a variation in outcomes across the country. We will look to see what can be done to speed up the efforts that are being made. As I said in my opening remarks, again, we are seeing progress on the poverty-related attainment gap. We have seen that coming through clear from Audit Scotland. We have seen that being remarked by headteachers, but also those Audit Scotland and education sector in general are quite rightly wanting us to do more and to do it quickly. We are keen to do that. Part of that will be through the work of Education Scotland. One of the areas—I give one example of what we have to do from the experience of children and young people during the pandemic—is to look at digital devices. We know that there has been a great deal of work done by different local authorities to supply digital devices during the pandemic. There was also the money that went in through the recovery investment from the Scottish Government. However, we need to do more on that, which is why we have our commitment for digital devices by the end of the pandemic for every young person, because we need to be able to make sure that a child, regardless of where they are, has that ability to have that support and connectivity and that their schools have the connectivity so that digital devices can be used by teachers in perhaps different ways than we have experienced in the past. There is a great deal that we can learn. One of the aspects that I would take from the difficult couple of years is how the education sector as a whole has worked collaboratively. That has been commented on favourably in recent reports. That is something that I would like to continue. I fully appreciate that there will be different areas where, as politicians, we will disagree on matters on education. Indeed, the education sector has a variety of views perhaps on the way forward sometimes on different aspects. However, the way that Government, both national and local, unions, young people, parents and others have managed to come together and we have worked collaboratively under the most difficult of circumstances is something that I would very much like to see continue. If we work like that, we have a much better chance of the success that we all want to see for children and young people. That is great. Thank you very much for that. It is good to know that we are looking at what success looks like and the collaboration and engagement that is really taking that forward. I also wanted to ask you about the class contact time as well. The OECD report obviously was raised there about preparation and planning. I am wondering if that is something that you think would also have an impact on the attainment gap. Will there be a focus on that there, too? It is something that was highlighted in the report. This is something that, as a Government, we are taking very seriously. Obviously, we have a commitment to reduce class contact time for teachers by one and a half hours per week. That is something that is now going through due process with the SNCT. That is something that I hope that we will be able to make again at a big difference. Again, pointing back to a lesson that we have learned, but I do not think that it came as a surprise to any of us. There have an interest in education was again the professionalism and the hard work that teachers undertook to support our children and young people under the most difficult of times, but we also know that we need to support our teachers to be able to have time to be able to support our young people. One of the ways that we can do that is obviously through the reduced contact time, and we will be moving forward with that commitment to be able to support our teachers further on that. Bob Doris, thank you for your time and good morning Cabinet Secretary. I will follow your question about the last two years under alternative certification models. Despite whose challenges young people from most deprived areas have got far more qualifications recognised than previous years, that is positive, even if the scenarios that they had to face were deeply harmful to them. Can you ask what you believe has been the strengths of what has been evidence-based teacher-led professional judgment leading to certification under the alternative certification models? What have been the successes in that being more importantly? What are the strengths of that that we should not throw out once Covid is no longer with us? I think that one of the strengths of that is that, once again, it has demonstrated the trust that we can have in our teachers and the trust that we can have in their professional judgment. I know that this was a very difficult time for teachers. I know that the alternative certification model presents challenges for teachers to be able to undertake, but that has been demonstrated that the best system that could be in place under an emergency situation. The lessons that I look back at all of that is that it really brings to the fore the professionalism of our teaching workforce and how they have been able to use their teacher judgment to be able to demonstrate our young people's success. That has been absolutely critical, because at a point when exams were not possible because of public health measures, we absolutely required a system that was credible, fair and teachers have delivered on that. I thank them again for that opportunity. I certainly hope that we bake in teachers' professional judgment into whatever replaces the current exam system and get that balance better between ex exams and what teachers see day to day week in week out in the classroom. Do you think that that has perhaps been recognised by the SQA, who have said that, if exams do not go ahead next year, there will be no dual assessment? The SQA is effectively saying that no dual assessment means that they have trust in this coming year about the judgments that teachers are making in this academic year, should they have to use their professional judgment to again give alternative certification if that is necessary, so maybe a comment on that would be helpful. Should that be baked in going forward? I will take the two issues very separately because they are separate. When we look at next year, the SQA has a plan A, which is that exams will take place and that is absolutely what we as a Government, the SQA and, importantly, what schools and young people are moving forward with the teaching and learning. Of course, there have been discussions around contingency measures that need to be in place. For example, if the public health advice at that point said that we could not have an exam diet, the teacher judgment will be absolutely at the heart of that, but the reassurance for teachers is that there are no additional assessments that need to take place, so that is different from when we were using the alternative certification model. There are no dual assessments. Normal assessments can take place and teachers would be able to form a judgment at the end of the year if there was not an exam diet based on what has taken part during a normal assessment year. On future years and what will happen in future years, that is a very separate issue that will be looked at. I will make further announcements on that later on in the autumn, because we have obviously had the Stobart report looking at what will happen in the future. Exams, of course, will play a part in that, but I think that the Stobart review has presented opportunities and questions that we will want to look at about what that will look like in the future. That is something not just for Government, but that will be taken forward in the spirit of collaboration and discussion with others. I will make further announcements on that in due course. Finally, convener, I start with my line of questioning by talking about those in those deprived areas. Clearly having a really difficult time over the last two years, but achieving greater certification that they had under the previous models pre-Covid. We have got the attainment challenge. You say that there is a refresh of that. I welcome what more you can say in relation to that, particularly in relation to pet monies, perhaps in relation to the new teachers, whether they will be more likely deployed in deprived areas, the impact that free school meals may have, wraparound care, a general comment on that would be helpful, cabinet secretary. Do you think that the £20 universal credit reduction will directly impact on the poverty-related attainment gap, cabinet secretary? I won't say too much if you'll forgive me, convener, about the attainment challenge and the refresh of that, because I will make further announcements in due course on that. What I can say is to reassure committee that very much at the heart of that will remain the empowerment of schools to be able to take decisions, because, for example, through the money, through PEF, they know their communities best and they know how best to use that funding to support the children and young people that they are there to support. One of the challenges that we will have as a Government as we look to tackling the poverty related attainment gap is that we can do so much in education, and we are determined to do that. The other area is to tackle child poverty. I am working very closely with my colleague Shona Robison to see what can be done on our portfolios around that. The UK Government will, of course, take away the equivalent of the Scottish child payment through the universal credit cut, and that inevitably will have an impact on children and families right across the country, which will therefore inevitably have an impact on how they can perhaps prepare for school. The Government can do what it can through the school clothing grant, through face school meals, et cetera, to be able to support children and young people, but it does not help when part of our support is then taken away by another hand. I am just checking, convener. Not on universal credit, that point is well made. I do not want to explore that any further, but under the attainment challenge, PEF is here to stay, because we have a real difference to the schools in my constituency. Can you say a little bit more about the teacher numbers, the additional teachers, will they just be for local authorities to deploy as they see fit, or will there be a real motivation to direct them to perhaps schools in more deprived low-income areas to really assist with that attainment challenge? That is my final question, convener. So, when we are looking at the attainment challenge, I will of course look at the different funding streams within that, and I will look to see whether that is the most effective use of that. I know when I met various committee members at the start of my time as education secretary, people had different opinions on how that might be done in the future, which I have listened to. However, something that has been a key part of the attainment challenge overall has been the ability for headteachers to be able to make direct decisions, and that is something that will absolutely remain with regard to teacher numbers. Of course, the commitment for the Government is for 3,500 additional teachers during this parliamentary term. That sits separate and in addition to the Scottish attainment challenge fund. That is not part of my discussions around the attainment challenge, but that will be something that will go through the usual process of the funding being distributed to local authorities on that issue. How are you making sure that the new teaching positions are permanent contracts? I know that there was an agreement during the summer in relation to the permanence of the funding for teachers. How is the Government following through? Are you measuring? Because, at one point, when I asked the parliamentary question recently, one in eight teachers in Scotland were on temporary contracts. Clearly, that is something that we all agree needs to be changed. How is the Scottish Government monitoring that and measuring it? I think that my memory serves me correct, convener. The written question that was given to you also included teachers who might have been on a permanent contract but who were in a temporary position. We just need to use some of those figures with caution on that. In saying that, however, there is absolutely a concern that I have heard loud and clear from teachers directly about the number of teachers who are on actual temporary contracts. That is why I have taken action to baseline the funding that has been part of our Covid recovery strategy. We have now seen that baselined in, and obviously the money that is coming in for the £3,500 additional teacher over this parliamentary term is additional. As I am sure the committee would expect, I am keeping an exceptionally close eye on the fact that those teachers are additional teachers and that they are permanent contracts. That is something for local government as the employer to do. I cannot insist that they are on permanent contracts. I think that I would say that there is no reason if the money has been baselined for those teachers not to be on permanent contracts, but it is something that we are keeping an exceptionally close eye on. I am sure that the committee would expect. It is good to hear that, as we all are. Willie Rennie I think that baselining that funding for the teachers will help. I think that that is right. I hope that you would also look at the PEF funding, because that is allocated on an annual basis and obviously has an impact on the temporary arrangements that are available to schools, so hopefully you will look at that issue as well. I want to turn to the Scottish National Standardised Assessments. The OECD on page 128 of the report stated that the purpose and usefulness of those assessments are already being questioned and they told us that the SNSA is not considered by our team as the most appropriate system monitoring mechanism. Are you going to stop collecting the assessment data across the country? I have listened carefully to the discussions around what has been said in the OECD report and what was said afterwards. What we have to bear in mind is the reasons for having national standardised assessments, what they do and what they cannot do and were never expected to do. The purpose of the national standardised assessments is primarily formative. It is there to provide a very important and valuable diagnostic information to teachers on children's progress, so that is what they are there to do. With regard to what they cannot do and what they were never designed to do, they were never designed to be the measure of everything in curriculum for excellence. That is why there is different data that is gathered within schools to be able to support that through the national improvement framework, for example. I have looked carefully at what the OECD has said. I have looked carefully at the information that was gathered, which predated me in the priestly review of the standardised assessments. We are seeing an increased use of them by teachers and they are finding them more useful as the years have gone on. That is another important part that we need to look at. What are they there for? Are teachers finding them useful for what they are designed to do? As we see from some of the work that is coming through from teachers, they are finding them useful as part of that formative assessment. I have no doubt that formative assessments have been used for generations in schools. I understand that. My issue is that you collect them and you produce a national report, and that national report is now leading to crude league tables being published. In fact, one of the First Minister's schools in her constituency was highlighted as one of the apparently worst performing schools in the country. I do not believe it for a minute. I believe that school is probably performing well, but because of its demographics and its background, it is assessed as one of the worst schools. That surely cannot be good for the Scottish education system. If you stopped collecting that data on a national basis, stopped using it for monitoring purposes and allowed teachers to continue to use it at a local level, surely that would be the best of all words. Why are not you stopping collecting the information? It is very important that we have data and we have the correct data. That allows teachers to be able to make informed judgments about how well a pupil is progressing. It allows head teachers to be able to assess what is happening within their schools at a local authority level. It is also useful for that. It is important that we have information at a Government level to see, as I was discussing earlier, if there is a concern around the variation of outcomes for children. It is important that we gather data so that we can ensure that every child, regardless of where they are in Scotland, has the right opportunities and we are not seeing a variation in outcomes. To be clear, what we collect is curriculum for excellence levels. We do not collect and publish the standardised assessments. Those are two very different aspects of it. It goes back to what data is being collected, what it is used for and how useful it is proving for the different parts of the system. It is right. There is nothing in the OECD report that says we should not be collecting data at national levels. The challenge that they have given us is are we collecting the right data and are we doing the right things with it? I would make the distinction about standardised assessments and the data that we collect at a national level and how we use it. We have heard evidence from others that a survey of literacy and numeracy that used to take place was not perfect and could have been improved, but that kind of survey, that census approach, is better than the use of data, which includes the SNSA as part of the framework to make the assessment of performance of schools and individuals. It is not the right way to do it. We should be returning to a survey approach. Why will you consider that so that we can stop having crude league tables that demoralise schools and pupils? To be absolutely clear, the Scottish Government does not and will not ever produce league tables for schools. You provide the data for us. It is important that we have data. If Mr Rennie is saying that we should not have any data at a national level to allow us to decide whether there is an issue about the variation of outcomes, it is perfectly entitled to that. Do not misunderstand me. I am in favour of data, but I am not in favour of individual data being available on schools that can be turned into league tables. I understand that you do not produce league tables, but newspapers have done so, and they can only do so because you are publishing the data. Why do not you produce surveys on that basis, which is a far superior system? I just do not understand why you are continuing with this policy when it has been criticised quite widely by a number of people. He may say that it has been criticised quite widely, but in the 2015 review of education in Scotland, the OECD said that the sample approach of the SNLN did not give national agencies enough evidence. We have been told by the OECD in the past that sampling does not provide the right evidence to allow national agencies to be able to take the right decisions and the right course of action. There is absolutely a balance around sampling and the type of sample data. We continue to participate in the largest international survey PISA, but we have to look very carefully at whether sampling provides us with the information that is required. We have from the OECD in 2015 a suggestion that light sampling of literacy and numeracy at the national level has not provided sufficient evidence for other stakeholders to choose in their own evaluative activities or for national agencies to identify with confidence the areas of strength in the years of the broad general education across the four capacities of CFE, nor has it allowed identification of those aspects or localities where intervention might be needed. There is a direct quote from the OECD that is seen in caution on the use of sampling, so it has to be some sampling and some census. The crucial word on that was light sampling. You could have heavier sampling and still keep a sampling model rather than the current model that you have adopted that allows crude league tables to be published. It is very important that we have the information that we do use around curriculum for excellence levels. That is a pupil by pupil basis so that teachers, schools and national agencies know what happens within our schools. If we do not have that, then it is exceptionally difficult at a national level or even I would suggest at a local government level to be able to make the correct decisions about where more support might be required, about where there is perhaps support for a school within terms of more staffing or additional funding might wish to go in or additional initiative. It is difficult to be able to do that if we do not have the data at the level that we are producing it. It has to be a balance. I am absolutely very conscious of the fact that there is a variety of different views on the use of sample data and the use of census data. It is something that, as we respond to the OECD survey, we will of course have recommendations that the OECD has given us in this report. The quote that I gave out there was from a previous report, which we will look at very carefully. I am not saying that there is nothing that we should be doing on data and that I am in a fixed position over absolutely everything on it. We should always challenge ourselves to make sure that we are collecting the right data in the right way and that it is being used effectively. Finally on this, the OECD was very clear that, even though it was not in the headline recommendations, the text underneath those headline recommendations did have some significant criticism of your current data collection process. Do you accept that recommendation? I will look at the OECD report in its entirety. My official has not just read the executive summary and the recommendations, but we have read the report substantial as it is. Of course, I have looked at every single aspect of that report. I will challenge myself, we will challenge ourselves as we move forward with the OECD review response in full about whether there is more that needs to be done on data to make sure that people have confidence in what is being collected and that it is being done in the right way. We will go back to being clear about what the OECD report said about standardised assessments. I will go back to what I said at the start about standardised assessments. They are never there to judge the totality of curriculum for excellence. That was never their point. That is not what they are designed to do. Therefore, it is not surprising that they do not do that. We have already taken evidence and we all listened very carefully regarding the alternative certification model from young people and from the unions. There was a wee bit of concern that came through regarding too many assessments in too short a time. I was hoping that the cabinet secretary this morning could give us an indication of what stakeholder engagement the Scottish Government has undertaken to listen to the views of young people and unions in order to inform contingency planning for the year ahead. The work sits very nicely into what the SQA has done. Although, as a Government minister, I have regular discussions with stakeholders on this issue and a variety of other issues, as do my officials. What the SQA established last year was the national qualifications 21 group, which had representation on it from union representatives, from parents and from young people. Now, where possible, there was an attempt to achieve consensus during that. For the vast majority of that, with the exception of appeals, there was a consensus about how to use that. Clearly, then, there was a discussion about how the SQA could improve that process for next year, and one of the ways in which Fiona Robertson spoke out when she was here was around ensuring that there is a greater voice and capacity for young people to have their say. That group is exceptionally important. It allows things to be aired at length and it meets exceptionally regularly and continues to make sure that they are still discussing the contingencies that are in place. What has been established by the SQA last year was a good example of how stakeholders can work together. I am pleased that the SQA then looked at that and refreshed it for what more can be done this year, particularly to bring in young people more on that aspect. That does not necessarily mean to say that there will be agreement on all of those aspects of it, but I think that the process is one that allows everyone to have their say. Of course, as the Government Minister, I have a clear line of sight to stakeholders myself as they input into their discussions around that. It is something that we discuss at various times at the education recovery group, which I co-chair with Councillor McCabe and the things that are brought up there and refreshed and discussed if stakeholders wish to do so. That is great. I am also mindful of staff as well. Looking at this academic year 2021-22 and the three scenarios that are outlined there, what safeguards have been considered to prevent additional workload on staffing? That was something that has been discussed at Great Lent in the NQ-22 group. Clearly, there were understandable concerns about the workload pressures that the alternative certification model presented to staff last year. We are not in that circumstance this year and we are not doing the alternative certification model this year. The key point that has been looked at, which we have now discussed, is what are the contingencies and a reassurance that there are no additional assessments that are required that teachers have to carry out. That is very important reassurance to teachers because, as I say, they are still in the midst of dealing with the pandemic. There was a keenness from Government and the SQA to ensure that we are taking cognisance off the impact that decisions would have on teacher workload. Skills Development Scotland is a national body within your remit, responsible for skills investment plans and regional skills assessments. There have been regional skills assessments conducted for Edinburgh and South East Scotland, Highlands and Islands, Aberdeen City and Shire. When will regional skills assessments be conducted for the rest of Scotland? I do not think that I have that information with me, convener, about when the actual assessments will take place for other areas of the country. It is perhaps something that can be provided by the committee with that information. We all have our own local interests at heart, and I would be particularly keen to know, in Central Scotland, that we will figure in this work, which is vital. Skills gaps are not a new story in our economy. We can go back to any year in the last 20 years and find warnings and reports about skills gaps. We now face a challenge with those skills gaps as our economy restarts. To what extent do you think that those skills gaps are structural? What is stopping us from training people into those shortage areas? I am thinking specifically if I may be more elaborate a bit more. In 2014, the Care Commission highlighted shortages of trained staff in social care. There have been various reports about hospitality, and in digital there is a particular crunch. What is stopping us? Is it structural? What is stopping us from getting our people trained? You raise an important point, convener. It is something that has been a challenge pre-pandemic, but it has certainly been a challenge because of the pandemic. I would have to say that it has been accentuated because of the impact of Brexit in many areas. We are seeing vacancies in gaps over particular areas. It is not specifically a new phenomenon. I have got reports here. I can go back 20 years. There has been a series of reports. I do not think that we should get too caught up in any current issues. This is a structural issue, isn't it? Forgive me, convener. I think that there is a variety of sectors across the country. We would absolutely say that some of the skills gaps have been accentuated because of Brexit. I do not think that that is too much of a political point and merely a statement of fact. However, there are issues that have been going on for some time in certain areas. One of the aspects that you have raised quite rightly is about digital, for example, and that has been a challenge on-going. One of the areas that we are very keen to work on to ensure that there are no structural challenges at a national level that is having an impact on that is around ensuring that SDS and the Scottish Funding Council work very well together so that we are assessing skills gaps and what is happening within our education sector. Part of the skills alignment work that has been done is very important in that aspect to ensure that, at a government level, our national agency is working as effectively as it can do, both from a skills point of view and an education point of view, and making sure that it works very well together. One of the other areas, of course, we will need to look at as we move out of Covid, is the challenge that we have around providing support to key sectors. That is why, for example, we have had national transition training funds, and that is why we have the flexible workforce development fund, an individual training account. This year, we will evaluate the flexible workforce development fund and ITAs to assess whether there is, again, more that can be done to simplify, to strengthen that lifelong learning offer, and to challenge ourselves to see whether there is more that we can do on that. With regard to the digital shortages, there is, of course, a great deal of work going on just specifically in that sector, which I probably do not have too much time to go into at committee today, but I am happy to give further evidence to committee on that by writing if it would help both to deal with some of the short-term challenges that we have seen and also a competitive market that we have that is leaving it difficult, for example, for small firms to be able to take part in it. We are looking very closely at a national level, a government level, to see what needs to be done in terms of our funding streams and in terms of our national agencies to make sure that we are providing that effective support to people when they need it. I hear what you are saying, but what is your analysis of what has been stopping us to this point? You have talked a lot about the present and the future, but what is your analysis of why we have such skills shortages that go back so far? Let me ask you bluntly. Is skills development Scotland fulfilling its role? Is that organisation an organisation that you should be looking closely at in the same way as we are looking at the SQA in Education Scotland? I can assure you, convener, that I keep a very close eye on all the agencies that are under my remit. Yes, I think that SDSs are working effectively. What I have tried to lay out in that answer is that we are not taking anything for granted. That is why we are assessing the packages that are on to see if they are fit for purpose. That is why SDS and the funding council are one of the areas where we know that we need to do better around the skills alignment to make sure that the skills packages and the education packages that we are setting out. I am still not hearing an analysis of what has stopped us to this point. To be able to fix something, you have to know what it is that you are trying to fix. What are we trying to fix? Why are we not succeeding in training Scots for these highly skilled jobs in many cases? Part of the challenge is for some of the areas that are not highly paid jobs. For example, one of the areas where we might attract people into social care, for example, is having a better fair work policy and a better standard of pay. For example, some of the announcements that were made by the health secretary yesterday on that. Of course, some of the areas around employment or fair work are reserved to Westminster, so we have areas in low-paid work where we have a challenge because the actual sectors are not an attractive offer given the wages that are being paid. At that point, one of the ways that that could be assisted with is if the real living wage was at a more substantial level. Some of the other areas where we are having challenges is around ensuring that we have people skilled up correctly. One of the examples that we have looked at during the pandemic, in which we are very interested to see what more can be done around, is microcadential courses, which allow people to move from one sector to another or to upskill that will allow people to support the skill needs across the economy. One of the reasons why we are assessing what has been happening at the moment is how successful have those microcadential courses been? Has it allowed for upscaling? Has it allowed for people to change courses, for example, in terms of their careers when we are looking at the national transition training fund? It is important that we assess what we are doing right just now because part of our challenge— You are doing right, yes, I agree, but also what has gone wrong. That is why we are assessing it. We can have longer conversations about this, I am sure. I want to make sure that I get my colleagues in, but Michael Marr has been jumping up and down here in the corner and wants to get him in. I am quite animated by the issue around digital skills, as it pertains particularly to my home city of Dundee, but more broadly across the country. I am pretty unconvinced by your analysis of that, if I can say so, cabinet secretary. We have a situation where computer games, training or computer courses in universities cannot put in place computing hires as a compulsory subject requirement because we cannot get kids hires, because there are not enough teachers. As much as there is an issue about SDS—there is a reasonable statement from the convener—there is much more in your portfolio that pertains to that specific issue. Those are not low-paid jobs. Those are absolutely high-paid jobs of the future that could attract an investment. I said over the digital that I would be happy to provide further discussion, but I am happy to get into it a little bit more. I think that this is an area that uses some of the examples around lower-paid jobs. I would stress that they are not lower-skilled jobs, but lower-paid jobs. However, there is an area around digital, which is key, but that is exactly why we have had the Logan review that is looked at this particular issue. I spoke directly to Mark Logan about this issue and about the education issue. When we were having our discussions on that, there was an agreement that my officials would work with him to, again, see what more could be done in the education sector, because I absolutely take your point. I have no issue with your assessment at all about the challenge that we have of ensuring that we have the right skills within the teaching profession to be able to provide the courses to allow people to go on to university. That is just one of the aspects within the Logan review, and it is something that he and I have discussed about what we need to do on that. I absolutely agree that it is a point that more needs to be done on, and it is an area where we are keen to work with him to see what more could be done collaboratively on that and what we need to change. Part of the challenge is about attracting people into the teaching profession that may have other employment opportunities out there if they have the type of computing background, and they may not see teaching as the attractive option in that, and that is one of the areas among many that we are looking at on that. Thank you for that. I am sure that this is an issue that we will return to time and time again. Cabinet Secretary, I would like to return to the conversation that you were having with COCAB Stewart and the National Qualifications Group. Have you spoken since the 2021 ACM experience? Have you spoken to Cameron Garrett, the MSYP, who is quite critical of his experience on that group, or to Bruce Adamson, the Children's Commissioner, who was scathing about the claims of co-production by young people? I have not spoken to the commissioner, but I have absolutely heard what he has to say on it. Most of my discussions are with Liam, who is on the education recovery group. He has made very clear the discussions that have been had about the concerns about the NQ21, the NQ22 group. That is one of the areas where we need to be very careful as a Government. I have listened very carefully to what the commissioner said about being careful—I think that he has put it more strongly—about the types of wording that we use. When we say co-design, it is genuinely meaning co-design. It is one of the areas where I am keen that we are doing a lot more as a Government, so that is exactly why I have set up the Children and Young People's Education Council that will have parity with the Education Council that has been refreshed and will meet soon so that children and young people have a voice. I am acutely conscious given my experience and my previous belief in social security. You can have people at the table, but it does not mean that they fail to have their voice heard at that point. It does not mean that they are facilitated to have their voice heard at that point. That is a lesson that, regardless of where it is in Government, we need to absolutely learn and take cognisance off. I very much think that I have listened. I am quite happy to be told by the commissioner otherwise if we need to do more on it, but I think that we have listened to the criticisms that were there. That does not mean that we will agree with a Children and Young People representative on a panel. There were areas around the appeals process for 2021. For example, I fundamentally had a disagreement with the points that were being put forward about a no detriment policy on that. I think that the key point is that any young person in that process did feel that they had the right opportunity to have their say and be listened to. I am not going to agree with them, but they did feel that, and they clearly did not at that point. That is something that I have taken exceptionally seriously, but I hope that we have demonstrated that we have taken action on sins. Moving on to the announcement last week that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission have used their statutory powers to intervene at the Scottish Qualifications Authority, what conversations have you had with SQA since you became aware of the EHRC's enforcement actions, and what action are you taking to ensure that the Public Centre Equality duty is being met by the agencies that are accountable to you? That is something that I take exceptionally seriously. We expect the equality duties to be taken seriously and to be undertaken thoroughly across our aim agencies. I last spoke to the chief examiner on Monday of this week to discuss the issue and to be reassured by her about the work that is in place now to ensure that everything that needs to be done is being done on the issue. I am reassured that all the required quality impact assessments regarding the awarding of the national qualifications over the past two years have been completed and have been published. That is in addition to those that were published by the Scottish Government. Clearly, there has been substandard practice in years gone by that has been recognised and those historic policies are now being looked at and actioned. How do you believe that came about? I struggle to understand that my interpretation of what has happened is not that EQIs took place but were unsatisfactory, but that they on a regular basis simply were not taking place at all, which for a very simple statutory duty stuns me. I accept that this all happened long before you came into the role that you are in now, but what is your understanding of how that came about? Had this simply always been a deficiency at the SQA since the public sector of quality duty was brought into place, or did it gradually fade away as the members of staff responsible for it moved on to other posts or other jobs? How did that possibly come about? That is one of the areas where the SQA will absolutely need to learn lessons. There is, again, lessons for all of Government to ensure that those situations never happen. It should be clear that it does not just predate my time in post, but that is an issue that really does predate the time of the current chief examiner in post as well. She is very keen to ensure that the SQA is fulfilling its duties. She knows that that is an area that, understandably and quite rightly, people are concerned about. That is exactly why they are already in a process within the SQA about completing all the outstanding AQIs. For example, there has been 28 new equality impact assessments that have already been published since August, so there is work to make sure that that is alleviated. However, I am sure that this is very much something that I haven't spoken to the chief examiner. She is very keen to ensure that she has practices and policies in place to ensure that we never get into a position where there is even a doubt that those obligations are not helping. I believe that there are other colleagues who are looking to come in on the issue. Briefly, there is one more issue that I would like to touch on. I am not sure if you were aware, but the First Minister misheard my question yesterday during the Covid statement on school ventilation. It is essentially going to repeat it if you may have that information, but if not, if you could write to the committee, it would be appreciated. The deadline for making ventilation improvements in schools is a gluten next Friday, certainly next week. Could you confirm how much of the money that was allocated has been spent and if a report will be produced or will be available to Parliament breaking down that allocation by local authority and how each local authority spent the money? Finally, how will the effectiveness of the ventilation improvements be monitored? How will we know that they are actually working and making classrooms safer? I did hear that the First Minister answered a entirely different point to misagree. I think that she misheard the question and answered it about small businesses. I came in preparation that you might try again today. The distribution of £10 million has been agreed through COSLA leaders. Each local authority will receive an equitable share of the funding on the strict understanding that it is for the purpose of improving ventilation, so that includes covering the cost of monitors and so on. That will be processed through local government settlement. The capital element will be provided to local authorities as a win-off payment in November, and the revenue element will be provided in March, as is the normal practice. There have been great strides taken by local authorities on this to take their initial monitoring before the October holidays, which are not all at the same time. I would stress obviously within Scotland, but they are making good progress to allow that to happen. There are some local authorities that are reporting concerns, for example, around supply issues, which we always knew might be a challenge in some areas. However, what we have been doing is working closely with COSLA to give advice on procurement routes for quick supply and to broker discussions between local authorities to arrange the loan of mobile devices. For example, if that is feasible, some councils are perhaps further ahead on that. In the round, once the October holidays have begun, we will then collate that final position and then I am anticipating providing a report later on October, which will allow an assessment of how that work has progressed. We will be keeping a very close eye then on what happens after October once the initial monitoring has taken place. Thank you. I look forward to that report. That is all from me for now, convener. Thank you. Thank you, Ross. Oliver Mundell. Thank you, convener. I want to ask the cabinet secretary when she was first made aware that there had been breaches of the SQA's public sector equality duty. I was made aware of that a few weeks ago prior to the public announcement being made. Thank you. You have seen Fiona Robertson's appearance at this committee last week. As a member of this Parliament, do you think that it is acceptable that she omitted to mention those issues when being questioned directly about how the SQA achieves equality? I think that this is an area where clearly there has been concern around the timing of the reports into this and the fact that it was the day after Fiona Robertson was here. I would absolutely like to make clear that it was not the SQA's decision on the timing of the publication of that report. There had been hope to publish the report earlier, which would have been before Fiona Robertson's appearance, but it was not the decision of the SQA to have the date that was finally settled on. That was an issue for the commission itself. I would agree that it is disappointing that that did not happen, so that Ms Robertson could discuss those issues. To be absolutely clear, that was not of the SQA's making. The SQA might not be responsible for that, but clearly over the past two years there has been chaos. The OECD have identified that the organisation is not fit for purpose. We now know that there have been discriminative practices. The First Minister has given the Parliament reassurance that the SQA had her full backing. Do you regret that? The OECD have not said that the SQA is not fit for purpose. We need to be very, very careful about putting words into the mouth of the OECD. I do not think that that is a position that is a comfortable one for anyone in the Parliament. What the OECD has pointed to is that we can look to having a different type of organisation in place through curriculum and assessment. That is exactly the recommendation that I have looked at and that I have acted upon. In the meantime, while the work carries on through the Ken Muir report into what will replace the SQA and any reforms for Education Scotland, both Education Scotland and the SQA have a very important role to do. I think that it is exceptionally important that the SQA carries on that work to ensure that we have credible and fair exams and assessment system next year. I have full confidence that it will continue to do that. I hear what the cabinet secretary is saying. I do not understand how it is possible to retain confidence in an organisation that has been responsible for a catalogue of errors and shown such poor judgment. Is it not time for the cabinet secretary to step in and assume day-to-day responsibility for decision-making at the SQA so that young people have absolute assurance that their interests would be protected? I can say that the Scottish Conservatives would support any measures that need to come forward in order to make that possible, given the organisation's likely to remain in place not just this academic year but also next year. I say with a greater suspect to Oliver Mundell that it would be utterly inappropriate for a politician of any colour to have direct control of qualification credits within their country. It is absolutely key that a qualifications agency is independent of government. That allows the system to be a credible one and outside political interference. I do not intend to take over day-to-day control of the SQA. What we absolutely, of course, as a Government, will ensure that we have is a very close working relationship with the SQA, as and when it is appropriate to ensure that we have the working relationship that people would expect, and I am sure that the committee would expect me to be able to work close, like challenge where appropriate, the chief examiner, on different issues as we go through this. However, the SQA has been able to ensure that, over the last year, there has been a fair, incredible system that has allowed young people to be able to receive their qualifications under the most difficult of circumstances. I will be very careful to keep a close working relationship to challenge where necessary. Given my time in this remit so far, people could criticise me for not keeping a close eye on the SQA, but I will do that very closely and ensure that the correct distinction is made between where there has to be independence of the SQA as well. I have just a final question on a different topic. A national newspaper had an advanced draft of the education recovery plan back on 14 August. Given that it is so uninspiring, why was its publication held back for yesterday? Have you, to ask you bluntly, given up on serious reform of Scottish education? I do not think that anyone who has followed what I have been doing since coming into portfolio would suggest that I have given up on reform. It has really been quite a busy time for reform within the education system. Previous drafts of the education paper that came out yesterday have been shared amongst members of the education recovery group on numerous occasions, as we have gone through it. It has been a document that we have shared quite widely with our stakeholders as we have gone through it. What I would say to Oliver Mundell is, genuinely, if he has proposals for different policies that he would want to come forward with this, I am, again, more than happy to meet him. As I said, at the very start of my tenure as education secretary about what he may wish to see, the budget process that we are about to begin, if he does not like what is in the material that came out yesterday, I look forward to seeing the proposals that the Conservatives will bring forward on this issue. I think that what the document was yesterday was a collation of what the Government is doing, because, funnily enough, the Government did not start thinking about recovery in education over the past month. It has been something that has been very close to our minds right before the election. That is exactly why we have been putting a lot of those measures in place. This Government was elected on a manifesto that was designed to assist the country through recovery from the pandemic, which again makes it unsurprising that the recovery programme that we had within our manifesto plays loud and strong in that. What we have done is ensure that what we have is policies that are in place that are turning their full attention to that. So, again, for example, the Scottish attainment challenge is not new, but it has been looked at to ensure that it has taken all the lessons from the pandemic. When the Scottish attainment challenge refresh, I make more announcements on that, it is not the same policy and funding streams that we have seen in the past because we are moving on. Of course, we are using the different policy levers that we have had for some time and turning it to the attention of the pandemic. I do not think that the committee would expect anything less. I think that the committee might have expected, like schools, that the plan would have been ready for schools going back in August, not published in October the day before you came here, but I will move on and let other members come in. Thank you, Oliver. Michael Marra. This unholy mess at the SQA does not emerge overnight. Statutory powers by the HRC are not the first action that they would take. The organisation would have numerous chances to reform its practices over that period. I have been told that this relates to 112 policies at the SQA, including awarding meetings for national courses, awarding body approval policy, equality of access to SQA qualifications, grading for national courses, the qualifications framework, disclosure Scotland policy and the SQA skills framework, all of which pertain as overarching policies to the last two years. What analysis has been done by your officials about whether that opens the Scottish Government to any potential legal challenge from young people who may feel that they have been let down? I understand that Mr Marra has received a list from the SQA of the areas of policy that still need to have an AQA. I would urge some caution on that. He has a list of the policy headlines for it, but I would again hopefully reassure the committee on that. I have spoken directly to the chief examiner on the issue that has been on-going discussions with the SQA and my officials on that. I repeat that I have had a reassurance that there is nothing outstanding that has implications on the awards that have been given over the past two years. Those are historical practices that have gone on. Those are historical policies, but I have sought and been given the reassurance that the types of policies that they remain outstanding on have not had any implications on awards. There are a number of areas in which the type of agreement that happens between an organisation and the commission is signed legal agreement. There is confidentiality around that about what can be publicised on that. My understanding is that the SQA has sought and got agreement from the commission about that list being able to be made public because it is done very much as an attempt to reassure that it is attempting to be as transparent as possible while abiding to the legal agreement that has. I appreciate where Mr Marra is coming from. I would wish that there is perhaps more that could be said by the SQA on that. The SQA has to seek agreement from the commission to be able to make areas around that public. I do not think that that is a comfortable position for the SQA either, because I think that they would maybe wish to be able to reassure people more than it is possible, which is again why they have tried to do it through getting this list and being able to make that available to Mr Marra. I think that transparency would have meant trying to do something at committee to highlight this fact under direct questioning regarding equalities issues, that this was something that had been coming for a very long time. I hear the cabinet secretary when she says that this has to be done in agreement. I look forward to seeing the correspondence between the SQA and the EHRC when they asked for that to be brought forward so that they could do it before committee. Can I move on to an associated issue? I think that my view and shared by other members of the committee and certainly by members of the public that I have spoken to the performance of the leadership to SQA and in front of our committee last week was poor, frankly, before this came out the next day. I have had representations from the trade unions who wrote to you at the start of September and received what they characterised on 21 September as an appalling response about their on-going role and submission that they made to you about the terms of reference of the reform process. You say that you are very interested in that form. I have looked at that response and I would share their characterisation of it. Can you give them assurances in terms of the comments that they made about the hundreds of members of staff who have been ignored by the leadership of the SQA throughout the last two years, particularly over the debacle of the algorithm, as to whether their viewpoints have been taken into that reform process and how you are doing that? To be clear, the intention, as I understand it, was for the report to be out before the committee appearance of Fiona Robertson, but there was a requirement for it to be changed in date by the commission and therefore that was a decision made by the commission that could not be changed by the SQA. To be clear, they cannot ask for it to be brought forward if the commission says for reasons that they have to have a delay for it, because that is the reason behind that. In terms of the reference of the review and in terms of the feelings of the unions on staff, I fully appreciate that when I made the announcement to replace the SQA that it would be a time of great concern for the staff that is there, they are exceptionally passionate about their jobs, they are good at their job and there is clearly a concern as we go through this process about how they can be heard from it. There were a number of points that were made by different stakeholders when we were looking at the draft terms of reference for Ken Muir to come into position. Again, as with all those processes, not all the suggestions of changes can be made to a terms of reference, but I hope that what the unions have seen since Ken Muir came into post is that the unions will absolutely have an ability to have direct discussions with Ken Muir. My understanding is that that has happened already and I am sure that it will continue to happen, although that is a process for Ken Muir to decide on. All staff will have abilities to feed into the process of the review. It is very much not the fact that it will be senior management that will be led to have discussions with Ken Muir and that staff will be kept separate, although there will be one voice of the SQA that will assume to be representing all staff. All staff unions and, as people would expect, senior management in the board will have their ability to have their say in the review process. You will understand, cabinet secretary, that when the chief executive of an organisation who leads that organisation welcomes the announcement that that organisation is to be folded and got rid of, that the many hundreds of staff who work for that individual and who she is charged with leading would be incredibly disappointed. I think that that is a dereliction of leadership, in actual fact, when this came forward in terms of your announcement and then it was welcomed by Dr Robertson. They have made clear that they want to have separate representation on that body and they do not have faith in the leadership that the SQA to represent their expert opinion and their experience, so I would hope that you might consider that and take it forward and write again to the trade unions on that basis. If I can, convener, I want to move on to my last question. They have the ability to have direct discussions with Ken Muir and his work. There is nothing stopping the unions having direct discussions with them. My understanding is that those discussions have happened already, there have already been discussions, so I do not need to interfere in that process because there is nothing stopping them from having that. I think that by the correspondence that I have had, it sounds like I have had contact with them more recently than you, cabinet secretary. On that basis, I think that it would be good if you might follow up with them and check that that process is as you described and they are satisfied with it. I will certainly undertake that and get back to you on writing on that. Thank you very much. I can assure you that I have had very regular conversations with my officials on this. My last point on the separate issue, if I can convener. In the evidence that we took in the conversations that we had with pupils across Scotland, there was a significant theme that I thought emerged from it relating to—they have all been very concerned about qualifications, as we all have in terms of what has come from that—the challenge of what they have learned over the past two years, a huge gap in the amount of time that they have had out of school. Have you and your officials undertaken an assessment of the knowledge and learning gaps that have taken place over the past and the impact of that? Has that informed your recovery plan? In many ways, it refers back to one of my earlier answers to Willie Rennie on what is collated. Part of that is the curriculum for excellence levels data that we gather to be able to assess where young people are at in their progress along this. One of the aspects that we are obviously very keen to ensure is that it is very important to look at what has been learned over this, and the data is there. It is also very important to look at the health and wellbeing of young people through this process. In December, there is another survey that is out on health and wellbeing to be able to assure ourselves about where we are at with this aspect. We would expect Government to be able to keep a close eye on that, not just because of the pandemic, but just in general. The national improvement framework interactive evidence report provides an overview of what we know about education and the context of where they are at. That is work that is being looked at. There is also work under way to gather additional evidence for the 2022 NIF from the lockdown low-down survey, as well as head teacher surveys and the health and wellbeing census that I mentioned. That is from P5 to S6. That is critical, isn't it? The document that you published yesterday, the heavy commented committee, does not have any data on it in terms of this loss. It talks about the equalities audit that took place in January. We would all want to see, the Parliament we want to see and the country would want to see, that the response was based on what had happened, what has been lost, what is the time that is lost. It does not sound to me that you have a full grasp of what that is. Maybe some things are forthcoming. That is great, but surely that has to be a response to what has happened. I worry that the Government does not have a grasp of the scale of the challenge. I can assure you that we have an absolute grasp of the scale of the challenge on this. We are speaking regularly, as the committee would expect, to teach our unions who give feedback about what is happening in their classrooms. We are speaking directly to young people on that. We have a monitoring and evaluation programme that is well established around improvement, entertainment and wellbeing. I have mentioned some of the areas around that. They will report in due course. That goes back to the point about why we are not waiting and why the material that we are doing to support young people in terms of additional teachers or additional funding that is already going on has not waited. It is already being actioned because we know that there has been an impact on attainment and we know that there has been an impact. Forgive me, Mr Marat, but there are timings for when those reports come out so that the data can be collated. I do not need the report to come out to know that there has been an impact, which is why the Government came in and has already ensured that we are putting in place additional teachers, that we are putting in place the additional pupil equity funding, for example, to support around Covid. We have not waited. We are already taking action. With the greatest respect, we cannot be criticised for our report on education recovery being told that actually there is nothing new in it and then being told that you should not wait. We have not waited. We have already taken action. When the further material comes out, for example, around health and wellbeing or the next data that will happen around curriculum for excellence levels, of course, at that point, we will ensure and self-check. It is an on-going process. This is not a point in time because, as I think I have kept stated, schools are still in the midst of dealing with the pandemic. I am not going to just look at what is happening last year. I am going to look at what is continuing to happen and the Government will adapt to its progress accordingly. There are a couple of supplementaries on this. First, I am going to call on Bob Doris and then Stephanie Callaghan. I know that colleagues will be mindful of time. It will be very brief. It is on the agreement between the SQA and the Equality and Rights Commission for Scotland that Mr Marra referred to. I note that the EHRC was very positive about the two-year agreement to drive up standards, and they believe that that will happen. Lynn Welch from EHRC also says that this agreement sends a clear message to other public bodies that, considering the impact of their work on people from protected groups, is critical in fulfilling their legal duties. That is really important to put on the record here as well. I can ask what the Scottish Government is doing to make sure that public bodies across Scotland learn the lessons from the SQA experience and drive up their standards. There is an area that we absolutely need to ensure that it is working not just well but to the standard that people would expect it to. That is exactly why we have undertaken as part of the programme for government to take forward an implementation of the quality and human rights mainstreaming strategies to ensure that that is being looked at as thoroughly as the committee would expect. I am sure that there are lessons that can be learned from what has happened within the SQA about ensuring that historical policies and practices at that time, if they are found, are dealt with expeditiously. I hope that that was brief enough. That was very good. Thank you, convener. It was just to pick up in the comments around wellbeing, confidence of children as well. Michael was talking about data there. I know that the Audit Scotland report on education outcomes noted that better data is needed to understand if outcomes like wellbeing and confidence are improving. You mentioned that there is a survey coming out in December. I am just wondering what plans there are to work with stakeholders to develop and publish consistent, robust data, national data that reflects those priorities, so health, wellbeing and confidence there. Will that be built into the national framework as well? Will that be updated to reflect this data and the fact that it is a priority in the effects and outcomes? It is something that we absolutely need to look at and to ensure, as I said earlier, that we are gathering the correct data over the correct areas. That is challenging in some areas of curriculum for excellence more than others, but we need to be up to that challenge. There will be a review of the national improvement framework measurements in 2022, so that will allow stakeholders to be able to assess, with Government, how we have measured for the NIF in the past. Is that correct? What needs to change? If so, what would you like to change that to? Are areas around health and wellbeing already part of our analysis? It is the right time as we move out of Covid to ensure that we are doing that correctly, but that will be a consultation that will happen early next year. I want to ask you a couple of questions about the OECD report. In general, it was a very positive report, but there are a number of areas that are raised by the OECD around room for improvement by the Scottish Government. Have you reflected on your approach? If so, can you tell us how you have reflected on that? First of all, I should say that the OECD report was very welcome and timely. We have accepted in full all the recommendations of that review, and I will make further announcements about more detail of how we will take forward that implementation in due course. One of the aspects that came through loud and clear in the report was that there was wide support for curriculum for excellence, and there was a quote, for example, that it continues to be a bold and widely supported initiative. Its design offers the flexibility needed to improve student learning further. I think that the foundations that we have are correct. Professor Stober in his report said that this was an inspiring example equated with good curriculum practice. We have good foundations to build on. Understandably, as we look to curriculum for excellence, it has been in place for some time now. It is quite right that the OECD has challenged the Government to see what more can be done to make sure that there is fit for purpose. That is exactly what I will be saying more about in due course, how we can ensure that it is right for the challenges that we have ahead. That is timely for us to do that, given the fact that it has been in place for more than a decade and not surprising that there would be changes that would need to be made. Thank you for that. Further to that, given that you have got this, you are going to be giving a statement. Will your implementation of the report reflect the OECD's vested approach? We will absolutely look carefully at what the OECD has recommended. One of the challenges that we will have when we are taking the report forward is that there is a lot in it and there is a lot of change, some of which can happen at the same time and some of which will have to happen within different timescales. Again, part of the reason for that is that some of that change, if it is going to be done in a collaborative fashion, as I believe it should be, with stakeholders, will take some time for us to work collaboratively with stakeholders to get the details of that correct. There is a lot to do. There is some work that we can undertake quite quickly on this. There are some areas that will take time. One of the issues that I am looking at when I look to make further announcements on this is to try to set out what we can do in the short term and to highlight the areas that will take longer. I think that that is part of the areas about what the OECD looked at in terms of their suggestions about how to take this forward, is the time that it takes to take it forward and also the manner. That is, I think, exceptionally important. As I said in earlier remarks, I am determined to play a really collaborative role as education secretary. The committee of the Parliament will decide how it wants to take forward any work on those issues, but I will be more than happy to work with anyone and everyone who has a role, because there are a number of challenges within that report and they cannot all be done at once or quickly. That is a slightly different point that is still to do with the OECD. How have impacts on college and training sectors been factored into any responses that you have made to date? It is an important issue that we look at in the round, particularly when we look at the senior phase, because we have school-college partnerships that are exceptionally important and becoming even more so. One of the areas, for example, where I would hope it demonstrates how we are linking in with the colleges around this is the fact that Collegy Scotland has been invited on to the Scottish Education Council—they were not there previously—and that demonstrates our commitment to look at this in the round and to recognise that we cannot just look at what happens within schools, but when we are looking at attainment and achievement, we need to look at that in a wider sense and colleges play a very important role in that. That is the method that you will be taking forward. It is one of the areas where I am keen that we can attempt to build consensus as far as possible on education. It is around the refreshed and reformed Scottish Education Council. It is quite a large body, but it brings together representatives from local governments and from some of the trade unions. Importantly, in the refreshed Scottish Education Council, more children and young people and more children and young people's rights representatives will be able to have that type of discussion. Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary. In the evidence that we heard from the OECD, there was a great deal of positive endorsements of the quality of education in Scotland. I do not have time to run through them all, but they found that we were a leading country in global competency and proficiency that we produce confidence and articulate children from our education system. There are good partnerships between universities and schools, and the curriculum for excellence has expanded opportunities. I wanted to focus on what I took, cabinet secretary, to be the central criticism, which was that, given that we have the four competencies in the CFE of producing successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors, what I took to be their central criticism was that the system, as it is, does not provide it necessarily a means of assessing and ensuring that each of those four competencies can be achieved. That was simply what I took from it. It may not be your view, but I wanted this morning to ask you three questions. The first really is, do you think that I have accurately described the central thrust of their criticism? In particular, how, in practice, do you think that it can be successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors, but that we have a means of demonstrating that, which is seen as reliable, objective and fair? Did the cabinet secretary catch that? Do you get a sense of that? I think so. Mr Ewing, I am sure, will correct me if I have missed the point, because he glitched out as part of his question there, but he will keep me right, no doubt. One of the areas that I have found refreshing when being education secretary is having some of the discussions with the OACD and taking part in discussions with the International Council of Education Advisers, and taking part in some webinars that have been organised by the OACD, and with a global audience discussing the successes of Scottish education in particular of curriculum for excellence. I do not sit here as the education secretary and say that there is nothing that we need to improve on or that we cannot do better, but it is refreshing to have a global perspective on Scottish education. The positive point that Mr Ewing alluded to at the start is certainly something that has come through very strongly in the webinars that I have attended from colleagues across the globe. One of the areas where the OACD has quite rightly challenged us is around how our broad general education fits or does not fit with our senior phase and within that the assessments and qualifications set up that we have at the moment. That is something that I am giving a great deal of thought to. I know that various members of the committee have some strongly held opinions on this issue as well. It is one of the areas where I will be making further announcements in due course about what we will do about this when I respond to the OACD. We have been given a challenge by them that the curriculum for excellence needs to have work done to ensure that it is ready for the challenges that we have ahead as a society. One of the biggest challenges that the OACD gave us was how to make sure that curriculum for excellence flows all the way through to the senior phase. How we do that, which was the bit at the end of Mr Ewing's question that I did get, was about ensuring that this is a reliable and credible system, and that absolutely has to be the case. However, we have a qualifications and assessments process. It does have to be reliable and credible. There are different ways that you can have that type of process and allow it to be reliable and credible. We can make changes to what is there currently. However, again, I stress that this is one of the areas where we will take forward discussions with stakeholders because there are a variety of views about how that can be done. I would like to build in as much collaboration and consensus about this as possible. I am very happy with that answer, convener. I look forward to further details and the statement. I hope that the cabinet secretary can give even more consideration of, because of the importance of ensuring that people in colleges, universities and business in the adult world can have full confidence in the validity of the awards that we issue to children through the processes that we employ. The second of the three questions that I wanted to ask was about that, because, obviously, with the massive disruption that lockdown has caused, we have had to do things differently and examinations have been made way for the use of assessment in general. I wonder what the cabinet secretary's view is to this question. How can we ensure that the outside world, the adult world, if you like, have confidence and can place confidence in the accuracy of the gradings, the results that flow from an assessment process that we have had to have of necessity over lockdown these past two years, essentially, as opposed to traditional examinations? Can she reassure, if you like, the adult world about the value and the confidence that we can place in those results and awards? It is a very important area around ensuring credibility within the process. The past two years have been like no others that we could have imagined or planned for when it came to what happened with the exams. One of the issues and points that I raised earlier was around the professional judgment of our teachers, and that came to the fore over the past few years. That proved that there are different ways of doing an assessment process that can lead to a qualification, and that qualification is still a credible qualification. More importantly, taking my or even the SQA's word for it, although it is absolutely one of its guiding principles, is to ensure the credibility of the process, and it worked exceptionally hard to allow that to happen. It was around how that was received by employers. I was really heartened to see a letter that went out that was led by Sandy Begbie, but it was absolutely signed by many other employers, which credited our children and young people for going through a process that might have been different. Those children and young people have faced challenges like no other year, and that therefore really did ensure that employers had faith in what young people were receiving at the end of that day, because they have done so facing challenges like none of the rest of us ever did when we were going through our exams no matter how long ago that was. I pay tribute to the university sector during that as well. It worked exceptionally closely with the Government and the SQA to have an understanding about what the process was so that they could have faith in that as they were looking to their entry requirements. The way that both universities and employers reacted to it demonstrates that there was credibility in what happened over the past couple of years and that you can have a credible system doing the assessment in different ways. I imagine that the cabinet secretary will, in her discussions with everybody involved, include the business world to ensure that they are confident about the way ahead. The chambers of commerce, the FSB, the council of development industry, the institute directors and so on, because I think that it is important to get them by and to show that we have an excellent system in which they can place confidence. The last of the three questions that I wanted to ask was slightly different and maybe a bit left-fuelled cabinet secretary, but do not look too worried, because it rose from something that you mentioned at the beginning, namely the pledge that every child should have either a laptop or a tablet. I welcome that, although I suspect that many children already have such devices, but it is important that we reach out to all, particularly those who are not able to afford such devices. I welcome that pledge, which the Deputy First Minister made earlier this year, I believe. However, a laptop or tablet is simply a tool to be used in itself. It does not achieve anything. I wonder in particular if the cabinet secretary agrees with me that one skill that would be extremely useful to enable children to acquire is the appropriate use of touch typing using the QWERTY keyboard on a laptop or tablet. Speaking personally, there are many things that I have completely failed to do in lifelike foreign languages, so that was my fault. However, I did have the opportunity from my friend and mother to learn how to touch type. Frankly, it is the most useful thing that I have ever learned in terms of skills in life. When I see children tapping away at a mobile phone with two fingers, I think that this is not great because it does not really equip you for the many walks of life where the ability to type effectively and quickly is an extraordinary benefit, not least in our own world, but in just about every area where communication using the written word is appropriate. I am asking the question at some length so that the cabinet secretary has ample time to compose her answer. To be serious, I do think that it is maybe just me, but I do think that it is an extremely useful skill. I wonder if the tool that the tablet and the iPad is can be made really useful by enabling children to learn how to touch type with a skill that will really, perhaps, transform what they can get out of their employment and their life in general. That is a bit of a left-fiel question. I shall do my best to answer it. You raise an important point. The member raises a really important point about the use of technology. It is not simply about having a device—I will broaden it out slightly and talk about connectivity, which is important to have as well—but it is also important about the use of that technology. I am being reassured that the experiences and outcomes include the use of technology as well. It may not go as far as Mr Ewing wishes on touch typing in particular, but I hope that I have given him some reassurance as much as I can today that the use of technology is something that is in the ease and knows within the technology. Thank you, cabinet secretary. If we can continue just slightly longer, we have a couple of other questions. Willie Rennie. What evidence have you gathered to justify the inclusion of children's services in the national care service? This is an area that is obviously still up for consultation on that. Clearly, the Feeley review looked at adult services as part of that, but there is a concern that having adult services within a national care service and having children's services separate will lead to more difficult transitions and challenges as we go through that process. One of the areas that we are genuinely keen to seek people's views on, because I know that there will be different views on that, as we look to the national care service, is how we get the best outcomes for children out of that, particularly with a view to transition as well. It is part of a consultation. The Government has not taken a view on that, as I hope that it would expect, given that the consultation is still live. We will, of course, analyse the material that comes from that. I think that an understandable body of opinion that believes that having adult services separate to children's services would be detrimental to how that system is raised. I appreciate that it is one body of opinion. There are others, but that is currently the position that we are looking at at the moment. Do you accept that it appears like it is an afterthought? It was not included in the Feeley report. There was not an equivalent report of the Feeley report. Fiona Duncan from The Promise has expressed, I would classify it as real concern. Is it an afterthought, or have you gathered evidence on that? Well, it is not an afterthought. If we go back to when the Feeley review was established, there was a clear need for that and a drive for that at that time, given some of the issues that have been shown up through the pandemic. When we are looking at this, the adult care services are there, but we need to check whether we can provide consistent delivery of services to what are the most vulnerable children and young people that we have, and to realise that a number of children and young people who have contact, for example, with social work services, do so because they might have an adult family member who is also receiving support within adult services. Does it make sense for those to be more seamless than they would be if they were separate? It is very much not an afterthought by any manner of means at all. What we have seen from Fiona Duncan and others is that they are challenging us to make sure that there are no unintended consequences, no gaps and how we would be able to deliver on the promise. How best would we deliver on the promise? I think that that is the right challenge to give to Government, and that is absolutely something that we will be looking at very very closely as we move out of the consultation and analyse the discussions that come from that or the recommendations that come from that from different bodies, who again may have very different opinions on that. My final question is, are you delivering the promise? The whole point of the promise was that it was never going to be an overnight challenge for Government to say, no, we are not, yes, we are. I think that we are making good progress on the promise. The work that the Government has taken on the promise has ensured that we are looking at things in a different way. It was never going to be something that could be done overnight, but we are making good progress to that, and we are absolutely determined to deliver for every child and young person that is a part of the care system for that. That is absolutely our determination and obligation to do just that. Just before we conclude, thank you very much for the time that you have given us this morning. Can I ask you a couple of quick questions? First one is, what study is being done into the impact on the physical and mental health of young people by having to wear face coverings for the protracted periods that young people at school are having to wear them? The evidence on face coverings is something that is looked at by our subgroup, which particularly looks at all the mitigation measures that are part of our Covid strategy. That is something that they regularly review. The subgroup met again yesterday and now, await their updated suggestions from that, which we will discuss at the Education and Recovery Group. The subgroup looks at a foreharns approach, as we do for all our aspects around the impact of Covid, indirect health and wellbeing. That is the role of the subgroup to provide advice on that basis. I am sure that I will be receiving advice from them, which we will discuss tomorrow. You have not received anything from them yet about the impact that this is having on young people, the conditions in which they are attending school? I have received a previous advice. What did it say? The advice looking at a foreharns approach was that, given the fact that one of our main concerns was to reduce the disruption to children's education through prolonged periods of school? What about the actual young people themselves? What is it saying that it is doing to them that they have to wear these face coverings for many hours a day? As I said, what they are looking at is the foreharns approach as a whole. One of the keys was around the disruption to learning. The subgroup has advised that the mitigations that should be in place at our schools at the moment include face coverings, because their balance of that foreharns approach was that face masks are an important mitigation measure to allow less disruption within schools, which had a major impact on children's health. I get all that. I am just asking you what the impact is on the young people, but maybe you will come back and tell us what the actual mental and physical health impact of that measure is, because there is one. How much will it cost to make all those structural changes to the SQA? Nowhere does it say how much has been set aside or has it anticipated that it is going to cost to replace the SQA. What is your expectation on how much you will need to be able to carry out this reform? What we will have is, in effect, a new agency, so the SQA will be replaced and there will be another body in that. Clearly, at that point, we will not have the SQA, we will have a different body. What that will look like is very important being left to Ken Muir and an independent review on this process. At this point, the exact make-up of that agency is something for Mr Muir to have a look at to be able to give their recommendations. The functions that he is looking at are, in many ways, being carried out by different parts of government. What he is looking at is what should, for example, go into the replacement of the SQA, where should inspections go to, where functions sit. We are not inventing necessarily new functions as part of this process. No, but there will be costs. All those things carry costs with them inevitably. Well, what I am saying is that we already carry out functions around curriculum. So there might be savings then? Well, that very much depends on what Mr Muir comes forward with, but I do not see this as part of an expensive process because we are not inventing new agencies for the sake of it. We are challenging ourselves to make sure that the structures, the functions and very, very importantly within that, the cultures of those organisations are fit for purpose. And my final question is, as you will be aware, the Supreme Court this morning has unanimously decided that the four provisions of the UNCRC bill and two provisions of the European Charter of Local Self-Government are outside the competence of this Parliament. When did your office first receive legal advice that this was the most likely outcome of this case? Well, as you will appreciate, convener, the discussions around this have been on-going for some time, but the judgment of the Supreme Court has literally came out while I have been at committee. I understand that the Deputy First Minister is making a statement to Parliament, so if I can perhaps refer committee to the Deputy First Minister's statement and the chance to ask questions then, because I have not had the opportunity to be able to analyse what has been made public while I have been at committee. You will be able to tell us at some future point when your office first received legal advice that this was the most likely outcome. I am sure that if that is a question that the convener wishes to ask the Deputy First Minister later on, as he has opportunity to get into this in much more detail than I do today, I am sure that the Deputy First Minister would be delighted to answer. Cabinet Secretary, once again, thanks to you and to Graham Logan for joining us this morning. Today's meeting is now at an end and Parliament will now be in recess for two weeks, so our next meeting will therefore be on Wednesday, 27 October. I formally close the meeting.