 I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons now, please, and I call on Michael Marra to speak to and move the motion up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I appreciate the couple of moments to prepare. Presiding Officer, I'm happy to move the motion in my name. In tabling this motion, I had been hopeful that it might, even at this late stage, allow the Scottish Government to see their way clear to reversing their position on the cuts being made in our poorest communities to funding for our most vulnerable young people. There's nothing in the very short Labour motion that is critical of the Scottish Government or of either of the parties in the government. There's no excuse to vote against this motion other than you do not agree with this premise. That is wrong to ask the poorest children to shoulder the cost of new services for others. The motion asks for a reflection and a change, of course. The motion was tabled before this morning when we heard from the cabinet secretary that the commitment to close substantially the attainment gap made by the First Minister by 2026 was to be abandoned. The green light was given to backfill cuts with peff money. I have to say to the cabinet secretary that nobody on this side of the chamber in the Labour Party will tolerate in any way using Covid as an excuse not to honour that timetable for our young people. Scottish Labour recognises and welcomes resource for all local authorities to challenge and tackle poverty in the school attainment in their communities wherever that is found. Poverty exists everywhere and it can be hidden. In the face of yearly savage cuts to council budgets, Labour councillors and councillors of any party are right to grasp any resource that this Government puts on the table. Just this morning, the cabinet secretary told the parliamentary committee that closing the education gap timetable aside between the richest and the poorest remains the defining mission of this Government while they must be judged on their actions rather than their words. In nine local authorities, they will suffer a 60 per cent cut to the attainment challenge funding. Dundee's 79 per cent, Inverclyde's 82 per cent, North Ayrshire's 75 per cent, Renfrewshire's 71 per cent could go on. However, that is not just percentage figures that are real. The report from the Dundee City Council earlier this year identifies 106 posts that can be cut to make up the saving. Those are vital teachers. They are speech and language therapists who work with incredibly vulnerable young people, helping them to engage with learning in a meaningful way. It includes school and family development workers themselves backfilling the decimation of social work provision. I recently visited a primary school in Dundee where an outstanding headteacher told me that she could not countenance losing these workers. If they did go, there was no longer any statutory provision on which to fall back. A former headteacher of 20 years standing in Dundee told Parliament's Education Committee that he had no idea how the city would cope. Those local authorities were originally selected due to their very high levels of deprivation and we know that that deprivation has not gone away. Child poverty continues, shamefully, to grow in Scotland under the SNP and the Tories. We also know that the pandemic has been worse for the poorest communities. Infection rates were higher, mortality higher, school absences higher and we know that education impact has been severe. What little statistical evidence the Government has gathered shows that the attainment gap is now wider than it has been since this policy began, but to choose now to cut and to choose these communities to cut beggars belief. Those are the words of the EIS and I quote, we have been absolutely appalled at the levels of funding cuts at beggars belief. We do not understand why those cuts would be made at a time when we know that poverty levels are rising, when the pandemic has absolutely bludgeoned some communities and we know that individual families and the young people within those families are struggling as a result of Covid. Thank you, Mr Marra, for that intervention. Would you accept and acknowledge that Alison Bradley of the EIS also said to the committee on 20 April that there is now an opportunity in fact in the framework has been adjusted to include all 32 local authorities with a new framing. There is an opportunity for us to do more and to do things differently and it is important that we seize that opportunity to the best of our ability. Would you acknowledge that she's also said that on behalf of the EIS? Most certainly, I don't think that it has particularly any relevance to the point that I'm making here. I think it's entirely appropriate that we take the opportunity to the best we can for our young people. I would say to Cocab Stewart and to members in the SNP and the Greens that to make those particular cuts to those particular communities does not serve the poorest kids in this country. To ask them to pay the costs of the provision of services to other parts of the community, I think that they would be doing a disservice to the EIS to pretend that they actually support that. Let me bring you to the NSWT and Cocab Stewart will recall this. They said that it is clearly not right to be making these swindging cuts. Jim Fulis of School Leader Scotland, it is surely immoral to take away that funding. Immoral. Teachers are raging in the words of a headteacher in evidence to the education committee. The single most important thing that could be done to improve the attainment challenge, in her words putting this money back. That is, in the end, a very simple question, but it tells us an awful lot about priorities. The SNP and the Greens are asking us to believe a frankly ludicrous proposition that the best way to give support to poor kids is to cut support for the areas with the most poor kids. No member can, in any good conscience, say in the morning that education for our poorest children is your defining mission and then vote in the afternoon to cut those funds. I now call on Shirley-Anne Somerville to speak to and move amendment 4445.2. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. This Government wants Scotland to be the best place for children to grow up and for all children, regardless of their background to flourish and achieve their potential, but we know that poverty is a major barrier to that. That is why our commitment to the Scottish attainment challenge remains unwavering and why. It could not be more evident than through our increased investment of £1 billion in the attainment Scotland fund to tackle the poverty-related attainment gap and support education recovery. Before the pandemic, we were making progress in tackling that gap. The year-on-year trend for the curriculum for excellence levels data was positive, with the gap for primary school pupils narrower for both literacy and numeracy. Although that SCQF level 5 or better and SCQF level 6 are better, the attainment gaps are now at their lowest level since consistent records began in 2009-10. Indeed, just yesterday, we published statistics that showed that the number of Scottish students from the private areas progressing to Scottish universities is at an all-time high. That demonstrates progress towards our goal of 20 per cent of students entering higher education coming from our most disadvantaged community by 2030. We know that there is more to do, and tackling the poverty-related attainment gap will take more work and more endeavours. I say this very much in the knowledge that the challenge is more pronounced with the evidence highlighting the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on children and young people impacted by poverty, alongside the challenges of the cost of living crisis, which will bring them to the same children and to their families. Recognising the progress that has been made to date, the scope to make progress on the impact of the pandemic, we have worked tirelessly with stakeholders to refresh the attainment challenge. That is why we have a new mission, to use education to improve outcomes for children and young people impacted by poverty, with a focus on tackling the poverty-related attainment gap. The mission recognises that to tackle child poverty, we need to break the cycle of poverty. The Scottish attainment challenge will continue to empower headteachers who know their pupils and communities best, to invest over £520 million in pupil equity funding over the parliamentary term to support children and young people who need it most, and to do so with the certainty that comes from confirmation of those allocations over the next four years. Alongside that, we know that poverty impacts children and young people right across Scotland. That is why, for the first time, we are now distributing strategic equity funding to all 32 local authorities, enabling them to undertake strategic approaches, working in synergy with their headteachers and others to support children and young people. Like for PEP, local authorities can develop long-term plans with their allocations, which are now confirmed over the next few years. Oliver Mundell will speak to Mr Marra, so I will take his intervention. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking the intervention. Does she now accept that it was wrong not to address rural poverty in all of the previous years that money has been handed out? I would point Mr Mundell to the fact that pupil equity funding is allocated through free school meals, which, of course, is something that can take account of children living in rural and the most urban areas. What we have moved away from is SIMD and other parts of the fund, particularly because he wanted to deal with rural poverty. Mr Marra spoke during his speech this morning about the fact that he recognises that there is poverty in every community, but I would say to him that we do not have £43 million in the education budget that is not already committed. If he wishes that change to happen and us to go back, we either have to take the money from the other 23 local authorities, or I take it from early learning, or I take it from colleges, or I take it from the school clothing grant. The opportunities there are nearly endless, or we can take it from health, justice or somewhere else in the Scottish Government portfolio. I hope that Mr Marra will tell me where the money is coming from now. I appreciate the minister giving way. Of the £40 billion budget that can be applied against, this is the number one priority, the defining mission that you have. Putting this money back represents 0.01 per cent of that budget. How on earth can it not be found? With the greatest respect to Mr Marra, the budget is already committed within education, as it is already committed right across the Scottish Government. We do not have £43 million waiting, unallocated, to be able to put into this. Where would the money come from? It seemed to this morning that Mr Marra was suggesting that I took it from some peff that rolls over to Scottish schools. If he is wanting to do that, let us be clear that that is what he wants to do. There are very important steps that have been taken and will continue to be taken by the Government on this issue, but we need to take account of the context that we are living in a country where we are tackling child poverty as well as the attainment gap. That is exactly what this Government is determined to do. I have been less generous than colleagues in introducing criticism of the Government, but I suspected that today's original motion would be too hard for them to support. Today's debate perfectly sums up the challenges in Scottish education under the SNP. It is yet another example of whether rhetoric does not match the reality, and the idea that, after that, they can continue to claim that education is their number one priority is a joke. Since I have been elected to this chamber, I have consistently made the case for more funding for rural schools and for recognition of the challenges that rural poverty brings in education. In the one sense, I am pleased that we have now had an admission from the Government that this has been overlooked for years. However, at no point did I ever imagine that this support would be paid for by taking money and resources away from others experiencing poverty. However, it is not just the seemingly casual redistribution of the funds that troubles me. It is the timing off the back of a Covid pandemic and the speed at which the authorities losing out will have to make eye-watering cutbacks. Perhaps all of this would have been more excusable if our schools had not become so reliant on attainment funding to plug the gap and pay for key staff and specialists. Under the SNP, our education system has been stretched to breaking point, left woefully understaffed and underresourced as the pandemic exposed. Now, in the aftermath, we are left with an SNP Government and Cabinet Secretary who seem detached from the realities that our schools and young people are facing. Their priorities are all wrong and the level of investment is insufficient to deliver on past promises. Looking more widely, there is little point in claiming to put additional financial support into the system to increase attainment when you do not get the teaching and learning bit right. That is where teachers can make a difference and help to close the gap. No one is saying that welfare and wellbeing are not important, but we must stop asking teachers to do everything and we must start resourcing them to do the job that they are there to do and support teachers to let them get on with helping young people. That means making sure that we can recruit and retain the right teachers, specialists and support staff across the country. It means getting class sizes down to a level where behaviour can be managed and individual pupils can get the support that they need. It means offering paying conditions that reflect what teachers do and it means trusting teachers to decide more about what their school needs. Peth and attainment challenge funding serve as nothing more than a mirage when we do not properly resource our schools in the first place. There are many questions over additionality when it comes to this money and I could go on all afternoon, but those are for another day. For the areas of the country, seeing their funding cut back, we are not talking about additionality. We are talking about less resources going to our most vulnerable young people. We are talking about less teachers, less professionals there to support young people off the back of the pandemic. Yes, we are seeing more resources going to other parts of the country and that is to be welcomed, but it does nothing for those young people or teachers left to pick up the pieces. How a Cabinet Secretary who claims to be here to champion education can say that it is enough not to be able to find more resources within her segment of the budget rather than pushing her colleagues elsewhere in government to find more money for what is one of the most important areas of public life and our most sacred duty here in this Parliament does beggar belief? I do not know how the Cabinet Secretary can justify robbing Peter to pay Paul, and that is a matter for her conscience at the end of the day. That latter point, Oliver Mundell was bang on about it. You would expect the education secretary at the very least, if no other ministers, but at least the education secretary to be the champion for education. I know that the First Minister has gone off that education does not regard it as the top priority anymore because the numbers do not suit her argument that it is now a long-term ambition rather than judge me on my record. He cannot judge me on my record, which is not going to be an office any longer. It is going to be that long term to get the progress that we are looking for. For the education secretary, not even to argue for an additional £43 million to plug the hole that they are cutting from nine challenge authorities across the country, it is depressing. It is a predictable argument from SNP ministers to say that if we want to make the case against something that we have to personally find the money in the budget, even though we do not have access to the books, we do not know what secret pots of money they have for their favourite schemes in the future. It is the SNP ministers that should be standing up for those things, but they seem incapable of doing so. The SNP has been slow-footed on closing the poverty-related attainment gap. While we were in government in the UK, we were arguing for a pupil premium back in 2010, targeted funding for those in disadvantaged communities five years before this SNP Government woke up to the problem. Who would have thought that the Tory Liberal Democrat coalition would be way ahead of the SNP on closing the poverty-related attainment gap, but it was. The evidence was there. I was going on about it, pleading with the SNP Government to follow suit with the UK Government, but they were incapable of doing so. Meanwhile, the poverty-related attainment gap grew, and it is still growing. Despite what the minister was saying today, the poverty-related attainment gap is still growing wider. The complacency this morning in the education committee was staggering, grasping on to little bit of statistics to try to prove that somehow it had closed before the dreaded pandemic came along and blew all of its progress away. That was none of the case. None of that happened. If you look at the numbers, the gap was growing wider. It is not gnawing. We had concerns about the nine challenge authorities initially. We wanted the money to go across the country. We were in favour of it being targeted, like the pupil premium in England, towards those wherever they were in the country. However, since that had been set up and the structures developed and the staff employed and the best practice developed in those nine local authorities, it seems absolutely nuts to pull the rug away from them just when they are managing to make a little bit of progress in those communities. For the want of another phrase, we should be levelling up, not levelling down on the challenge funding for those authorities. It is just the typical of this Government. Short-term decisions after micromanagement, after depressing narrative, that is what this Government is about. Rather than making it the top priority, the defining mission, closing the attainment gap completely in the shorter term, not the longer term. It is a depressing story from the SNP, with, I have to say, a depressing response from the education secretary. We need bold action, we need the funds to go with it if this is going to be a defining mission, but I am afraid that we are not going to get that from this education secretary or this SNP Government. The First Minister is fond of telling us that education is her priority. She never tires of telling us how passionate she is to ensure that every young Scot has a decent start in life irrespective of their background or circumstances. For most of our time in Government, 15 years in Government, the evidence and reality is that Scottish children born into the poorest families in the poorest communities have been badly let down. Those pupils living in more affluent families are still more likely to succeed in school and higher education. When the Scottish Government belatedly launched the Scottish attainment challenge, the Scottish Labour welcomed the recognition that investment and action were needed to close the poverty-related attainment gap. The funds allocated, while insufficient to fix the problems, were still a step in the right direction. Four of the nine authorities allocated the attainment challenge funding are in my west of Scotland region. That is a stark indication of the scale and concentration of poverty in the west of Scotland. Councils in the west have worked creatively to use those funds to make a real difference to the lives and educational progress of children and young people. Nevertheless, Audit Scotland has warned us of the challenges that remain. In a March 2021 report, it said that the poverty-related attainment gap remains wide and inequalities have been exacerbated by Covid-19. Progress on closing the gap has been limited and fall short of the Scottish Government aims. As was already said, that was in 2021 and we can now add the problems being caused by inflation and the cost of living crisis. Not only is this a damning indictment of the Scottish Government's failure to resolve the problems that we know all exist, it also highlights the utter stupidity of cutting money from those authorities where the need is greatest. As Michael Marr said, by 2025 funding for the nine challenge authorities will have been slashed by £25.3 million per year, that is 60 per cent overall, in total a cut of £63 million over the next four years. That is cuts of 82 per cent in Inverclyde, 75 per cent in North Ayrshire, 71 per cent in Renfyshire and 58 per cent in West Dunbartonshire. I would say to the minister that I do not have a problem with providing extra money for education in every council across Scotland. It is badly needed. Nor do I have a problem in reviewing how existing funding is being used and considering improvements. But what I do have a problem is with funding extra money for all councils by stealing it from those councils that the Scottish Government itself has identified as having the biggest challenge with the poverty-related attainment gap. That is Robin Peter to pay call. Taking money from our poorest areas to help better off areas is something Boris Johnson would be proud of. That is the tartan version of the Tory's so-called levelling up agenda. I could understand it if the attainment gap had already been closed, but that is clearly not the case. Inverclyde's attainment challenge funding will be gone by 2025-26. According to Ruth Binks, director of education in Inverclyde, we are one of the biggest losers as a result of this revision. We are now considering revisiting and advising all the initiatives that we have taken forward such as on mental health and employability for parents. In the Cabinet Secretary's closing remarks, I would like to know how that can possibly be justified, because I have not heard a single justification from a single SNP member so far in this debate. How do the Governments suggest that Inverclyde tackled the problems that have been caused by this Government's cuts? What should Inverclyde not be a sure remfisher and Western Bartonshire do to replace the money being lost? It is yet again the poorest families in the poorest communities being hit hard and the poverty of attainment gap will worsen. Ruth Maguire to be followed by Pam Duncan-Glancy. I take my role and responsibilities as a member of the Education, Children and Young People's Committee very seriously. Only a matter of hours ago, we completed our last evidence session of our inquiry and have not yet begun work on our cross-party report on the Scottish attainment challenge. For that reason, I feel compelled to note that I find the Labour motion today a bit disappointing and perhaps even a bit disrespectful to that work, part of which was outreached to hear directly from parents and teachers about their experience of the Scottish attainment challenge. They shared with us things that worked. We heard first-hand testimony of caring, diligent professionalism and practice, which reflected knowledge of their pupils, families and children and meant support was delivered in a dignified way. I am particularly mindful of the words of one headteacher who told us that the discourse around education was rarely about what happened in the classroom and more often about political point scoring and headline grabbing that is going on elsewhere. I will endeavour in my remarks today not to add to that unhelpful noise. As well as having lots going on for it, the area that I represent also faces severe economic challenges. No-one in my position would welcome reduction in funding to address the impact of those challenges. However, it is important to look at the facts of the matter. The Scottish Government decision to change the approach of the Scottish attainment challenge fund was backed by local authorities and COSLA leaders and ensures that the redistributed funding allocations recognise that poverty exists in all parts of Scotland. It is an inescapable fact that there is poverty all over Scotland. I understand the rationale behind wanting to ensure that the 59 per cent of children in relative poverty that reside outwith the nine challenge authorities receive a fair share of resource. My local authority, I will. I am grateful to Ruth Maguire for giving way. Is she aware of any Scottish analysis of how the impact on the nine authorities of those cuts will affect them as compared to the effect across Scotland? I think that that is an interesting point that has been raised there. My local authority was one of the nine challenge authorities, and up until the pandemic, North Ayrshire was progressing very well with both raising attainment and reducing poverty-related attainment gap overall. This is evidenced in Education Scotland inspection report in July 2018. North Ayrshire is making very good progress with improving learning, raising attainment and narrowing the poverty-related attainment gap. The 2021 report, Scottish attainment challenge 2015-20 impact report, North Ayrshire's attainment in literacy and numeracy between 2016 and 2019, has improved for learners at all stages. The work that the local authority, teaching and support staff have done around professional learning, nurture, mental health and wellbeing and family learning has been valuable and it has made a difference. I will, but you insist on these short debates. On that basis, does Ruth Maguire recognise that good work in North Ayrshire? How can she defend the 75 per cent cut that I am assuming that the SNP will not vote for tonight? I will vote for the Government's amendment, which outlays the work that needs to be done to tackle the poverty-related attainment gap. I know that the local authority is working on how those programmes will work going forward and that the multi-year allocations being confirmed over a four-year period will be welcome and assist all local authorities to plan for the long term. Addressing the poverty-related attainment gap is about more than what goes on in the classroom and the actions that the Scottish Government has set out are putting money in the pockets of families now, helping to tackle the cost of living crisis and setting a course for sustainable reductions in child poverty by 2030. Expanding access to free school meals so that children can feel the benefits of nutritional cooked food during the week. School uniforms place significant pressure on families, which is why the Scottish Government has increased the national school clothing grant. The newly doubled Scottish child payment, together with the three best start grant payments and best start foods, will be worth over £10,000 by the time a family's first child turns six, and £9,700 for second and subsequent children. I know that Opposition colleagues do not like comparisons with their friends and neighbours over the border, but that difference is of more than £8,200 for every eligible child born in Scotland in comparison to England and Wales. It does not make it better for people who are experiencing poverty here, but it provides context to politicians. Children cannot attain while they are hungry. To talk about an attainment gap at all is to acknowledge that many children and young people living in our poorest communities do significantly worse at all levels of education than those from the well-faced. That gap has got worse over the course of the pandemic. Data shows a drop in the number of pupils attaining an expected level in literacy and numeracy and fewer school leavers achieving one or more national or higher qualifications. That is sadly no surprise when we consider that over the same period the number of children living in poverty has increased. I will touch quickly on the child poverty before I go on to talk directly about the cuts that this Government has passed down to the poorest pupils in the poorest communities. Almost 240,000 children, that is one in four, are living in families who simply cannot make ends meet. As we plunge deeper into this devastating cost of living crisis, these families are seeing the gap between the money coming in and the money that needs to go out to cover the basics growing wider. The insufficient amount of money that they were already struggling to live on is being stretched even thinner, and children not only recognise that but are left at a disadvantage to their more affluent peers as a result. In some parts of Glasgow, more than one in two children are in families being forced to choose between heating and eating, a figure that rises exponentially in the First Minister's own Glasgow Southside constituency. How can we expect them to be able to learn and experience the full potential of their education? That is before we even touch on the poverty rates among the priority groups of Black minority ethnic children, disabled children and those in single parent families to name a few. While I acknowledge the action that has been taken so far, the Government must go far, far, further. I and my colleagues have taken suggestions to the Government on how to reduce those figures, and we have told them how to pay for those, but they have almost always refused to do so. Beyond that, as my colleague Michael Marra has set out, by implementing a cut of 60 per cent to the attainment challenge funds for the nine previous authorities who got it with no additional support to plug the gap, they have not just failed to take enough action to pull children out of poverty. The Government has now actively made decisions that would reduce the impact of poverty on the ability of children in those areas to excel despite their economic circumstances. That risks jobs, threatens innovative and important projects and, crucially, will have a direct impact on attainment. In Glasgow, the dedicated funding has been cut by 12 per cent. A quarter of children living in the lowest two SIMD quartiles attend a Glasgow school. Those are children who are already pushing against deep poverty and inequality. I will take a brief intervention. We'll be reduced by 3 per cent. Would she accept that Glasgow will continue to receive £30 million worth of SAC funding between now and 2026? I think that for that intervention, the cut is 12 per cent, not 3 per cent. A quarter of children living in the lowest two SIMD quartiles attend a Glasgow school. Those are the kind that are already pushing against deep poverty and inequality and are seeing their life chances weakened ever further by direct attacks on funding, put in place to recognise that they come from the starting position of disadvantage. Rather than reversing a long-term trend of local authority in educational cuts and recognising the dire need for investment in the system, the Government has spread already thinly on the ground funding, even by taking the money from nine areas with really specific needs and spread that same amount over 32 local authorities. It is, of course, vital that we see funding to guarantee those from low-income families everywhere to get the best possible chances of achieving qualifications. However, it is immoral to do it by removing support from poor children in parts of the country and to give it to poor children in other parts of the country, rather than to ensure proper investment for the wider education sector. Last night, I mentioned earlier that people in minority groups face disproportionate levels of poverty. Their educational inequality is also being exacerbated by their reduction in funding. Take children with additional support needs. There are five times more likely to leave school with no qualifications. 43 per cent of them are likely to leave school with one or more qualifications at higher. Early this month, I completed my five-year term as a councillor at North Lanarkshire Council. It was an honour and a privilege to represent Motherwell West, and I wish all the returning and newly elected ward councillors the best of luck in their roles. The reason I mentioned North Lanarkshire Council is because it was one of the nine original attainment challenge authorities identified with the highest concentrations of deprivation alongside eight other local authority areas. That means that young people in those areas do not experience the same opportunities as their peers, who live in more affluent areas. I am sure that all MSPs present in the chamber today will agree that no child should be disadvantaged because of their background or postcode. It made sense that the Scottish Government wished to take direct action by allocating 43 million throughout those local authorities to support children and young people living in those areas. However, as we know, the SNP backtracked in that promise, and instead of investing in areas that needed it most, they decided to extend that sum of money to all of Scotland's local authorities, spreading its vital funding thin. The decision taken by the Scottish Government to remove the targeted support from the nine challenge authorities will not help disadvantaged young children. In Forgewood, the area that I represented as a councillor is now MSP. That will not allow local schools to implement measures to close the attainment gap, which is essential if we are ever to give all young people the best start in life. It appears to me that the SNP is content with underperforming when it comes to education. This steel Government has no ambition, no drive and no innovative strategies to make the necessary improvements to tackle the attainment gap. Ross Greer. I am grateful to the member for taking the intervention. I am wondering how much more productive she thinks the Scottish Government could be in tackling child poverty if the Government did not have to mitigate her party's bedroom tax and benefit cap. I remember when the Scottish Greens actually used to challenge the Scottish Government on education issues, but it is a sorry, sorry state that this no longer happens, Mr Greer. When Nicola Sturgeon said that she would make education her number one priority, people took her at her word. After 15 years, our education system has less resources, less teachers in our schools and slipping school standards. It is no wonder why the SNP cannot tackle the attainment gap when they do not understand the basics of what makes education system work well. It is not good enough and our young people deserve better than this failing SNP Government. One area that I want to mention today is peff funding. Michael Marra rightly spoke out against the effects that the loss of the challenge funding will have in Dundee. The Scottish Government has also been clear that peff money cannot be used to backfill cuts. That puts schools in areas of high deprivation in a difficult position. What if a school that has not been able to spend its peff allocation would benefit from using this money to help to tackle the attainment gap through other methods? Will we see situations where staff posts could be lost because of the Scottish attainment challenge funding reductions? When I looked at peff allocation across North Lanarkshire schools, it was a mixed picture. Some schools had managed to allocate all or most of their peff funding, but what I did notice was a significant number of schools located in high area of deprivation had not. Although I understand there may be many reasons for funding being unspent and carried forward, the stance that is currently adopted by the Scottish Government does not give schools the ability to spend money where it is needed. It is restrictive and it is a typical SNP solution but of throwing money around and hoping that it provides a solution. The decisions taken by this SNP Government does not empower our headteachers. After all, teachers know our schools, they know our communities. They should therefore be given more autonomy to make the best possible decisions for our young people. That includes the flexibility of school funds to make a targeted plan to help pupils within the greatest area of needs. That goes back to my earlier point that the Scottish Government has no strategy when it comes to tackling the attainment gap. That is why we need a credible plan that will restore school standards, increase teacher numbers and ensure that our young people receive a high quality of education that they all deserve. The Scottish Government listens to the concern raised by Opposition MSPs across this chamber and to finally make education their number one priority by supporting the motion and Conservative amendment. I call Siobhan Brown to be followed by Ross Greer. Let me just begin by saying that when I saw the business bulletin this week, I was really pleased to see that Scottish Labour was using their parliamentary time wisely to debate two very important issues close to all of our hearts, health and education. Then the motion for today's debate came and it was very disappointing to say the least. The Scottish Government is ensuring that every child and young person has the same opportunity to succeed in education regardless of their background. As we've heard, the Scottish Government is putting in place the improvements to the Scottish attainment challenge in aid in our recovery from the pandemic and to accelerate the closing of the attainment gap, something that I thought would have been welcomed by everyone here today. Here we have the Labour Party and the endless grievance politics using their time to stand in the way of progress to help the most disadvantaged children of people across Scotland. But what I find interesting or slightly confusing by today's Labour motion is that the refreshed model has been warmly welcomed by COSLA and even Labour's colleague, councillor Stephen McCabe, the COSLA spokesperson at the time for children and young people said, we welcome the recognition that councils across Scotland will be pivotal in work to tackle the attainment gap, not only providing additional support within schools but enabling stronger links and the wide range of important services for children, young people and their families that sit beyond the school gates. It would be helpful if Labour were all on the same page. In this refresh, the Scottish Government has taken this decision back by local authorities and COSLA leaders to ensure that the redistributed funding allocations recognise that poverty exists in all parts of Scotland. Every corner of Scotland leaving no area deserving help behind and I welcome that South Ayrshire will now be included. So I don't have time, I've got a bit to get through. In my constituency of Ayr, there are deprived areas such as Wollestown which is one of the most disadvantaged areas in Scotland. The children and young people of Wollestown have just as much right to thrive in their education as anywhere else in Scotland. Already with the PEF fund from the Scottish Government has stepped in and provided South Ayrshire with over £2 million to be spent at the discretion of the teachers and school leaders to help close the attainment gap. Putting power into the hands of the people most experienced and well placed to make these decisions about the needs of their young people. I'm proud to say that the results of the Scottish Government's initiative so far and most importantly the hard work of the teachers and the young people, 98.3% of young people in South Ayrshire currently go on to positive destinations in employment, training or further study after leaving school. Now I'm not saying there is not more work to be done and there is and no one's denying that. I mean we must not rest on our laurels. But I believe that the SNP Scottish Government policies to tackle child poverty and the attainment gap are progressive and world leading. The SNP have delivered the highest spending pupil per pupil across the four nations in the UK. Scotland has more teachers than any time since 2008 and this government is committed to recruiting more. The number of primary teachers for example is the highest level since 1980 and investment in education is at a record high. The Scottish Government first introduced a minimum school clothing grant at a level relieving pressure for around 145,000 families. Presiding Officer, this is just to name a few. I welcome under these changes all 32 local authorities in Scotland will have access to available funds and be empowered to get on top of the attainment gap as quickly as possible and ensure that every young person is encouraged to be the best that they can. We should all want that and we should all get behind the Scottish attainment challenge. Thank you. I call Ross Greer to be followed by Maurice Golden. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Colleagues, I am glad that Labour have brought this issue to a debate today even if I disagree with their conclusions. The objective here is one that we all share. We all want to close the poverty-related attainment gap in Scotland, everywhere in Scotland. The question is about how we do that with the resources available to us. I have taken part in a number of debates on the attainment gap over the past six years and in every one of them I have made and a number of other members have made the same point. The best way to tackle this gap is to tackle poverty itself. We cannot expect teachers and school support staff to play a role somewhere between that of a social worker and a miracle worker working to undo the damage that wider societal inequality has done before children have even arrived in the classroom each morning. That is why the Scottish Government is ramping up its efforts to tackle child poverty. Free bus travel for young people doubling the Scottish child payment to £20 and a further increase to £25, capping the cost of school uniform, increasing the wages of low-paid workers by mandating that anyone bidding for a public sector contract or a grant must pay at least the real living wage, mitigating the UK Government's cruel benefit cap and far more. Those are how we are tackling child poverty at source in Scotland. Michael Marra I appreciate Ross Greer giving way. I agree with me that this is a sign in this change in policy of an abandonment of what is a generational agreement of the issue of multiple and deep deprivation that communities that have those particular challenges face particular barriers and actually require the resource to combat them. Ross Greer I am grateful to Mr Marra for the intervention. I am about to come on to a point about the differences between communities that are experiencing poverty as a whole as opposed to those individual families who experience what we describe as hidden poverty in welfare postcodes. Schools and attainment funding that they have been provided still play an essential role. Poverty exists in every council area. Indeed, most children living in poverty do not live in what we regard as poor postcodes afford to use SIMD data. There are differences and experiences and outcomes between living in deprivation in a deprived community and doing so in an area where most families are financially secure. So there is an important debate to have about how we support those in areas with high concentrations of poverty and those whose poverty is what we refer to as hidden. I think that more often it is the case of people not wanting to look than the fact that it is hidden. But a funding model based on postcodes misses most of the children that we are trying to help. 59 per cent of those children are missed by that. As even those who are opposed to this change in funding have noted, there is hidden poverty everywhere. So funding intended to close the poverty-related attainment gap needs to get everywhere too, proportionate to the levels of child poverty in each area. Young people in 23 council areas will now benefit from support which was not previously there. I am not trying to gloss over the impact over the next four years in the nine challenge areas. But this is where I really struggle with Labour's position. Just a few months ago, we debated this year's budget. During those debates, Labour representatives proposed additional spending on a whole raft of policies. For memory, I agreed with all of them. But it totaled over £2 billion and not a single tax rise or cut elsewhere in the budget was proposed alongside it. It is entirely legitimate for Opposition parties to oppose government policy. But if you are serious about changing it, there is an illness to actually present a viable alternative. That applies in this case too, given that the budget is fully allocated and it is £43 million a year that is being asked for. More support is being provided to young people and their families in those nine areas. Everything that I mentioned earlier from free bus travel to increasing the child payment will disproportionately benefit those on the lowest incomes. The overall quantum of money being spent to support young people experiencing poverty is increasing, not decreasing. That is in the context of a Scottish budget which has been cut by the UK Government to the tune of 5.5 per cent this year alone. £750 million has been spent in the last session and a further £1 billion will be spent this session solely on the Scottish attainment challenge. That does not include the funding for free school meals, the increased school clothing grant or a myriad of other interventions. Again, I am not dismissing the difficulties that this change in funding will cause in some areas to ensure that children everywhere who need extra support are able to receive it. But as the head of education Inverclyde Council told us last week, this is the fair thing to do. Thank you. I call Maurice Golden to be followed by Co-Cab Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Our children's education is more important than any one politician, party or political ideology. I believe we all recognise that to be true. So I do not doubt the sincerity of anyone here today in wanting to see every young person in Scotland succeed in life. And they must succeed because how can we hope for a better, more prosperous and fairer Scotland when only some children have the opportunity to achieve their potential? But what I do have doubts about is the effectiveness of Scottish Government policy. After 15 years in power with full control over education I would encourage the SNP to look honestly at the results of that policy. So let me set out those results. And yes, we've heard statistics today already, but they are worth repeating again and again to drive the message home that when it comes to education failing our children is never an option. Let's take the basics first, primary literacy and numeracy. The attainment gap was bigger for both in 2020-21 than at any time since comparable data was first made available. Last year numeracy fell to 74.7% down from 79.1% in 2018-19 and literacy dropped from 72.3% to just 66.9%. It's a grim picture at secondary level 2. The 2021 attainment gap is wider than at any point since 2017. For those attaining A grades the difference between the most and least deprived pupils is stark over 22 percentage points. For A to C grade attainment the difference is 7.9% worse than a year before. We have already heard today about funding but funding alone is not enough to close the attainment gap. That is why the Scottish Conservatives want to see more focus on teaching and learning. Getting the basics right early on lets us make sure pupils are equipped with the skills needed for the future as they advance through school such as preparing them to work in a circular economy which requires specialised engineers, innovators and leaders. Returning to funding though it might not be the whole answer but it is obviously important. So it makes no sense to see the Scottish Government cut support for those who need it most because ultimately that is what their new challenge funding scheme amounts to. Let's look at Dundee. We know children from the most deprived backgrounds are faring worse in school and Dundee is something of the highest concentrations of deprivation. That should mean Dundee gets more support but under the SNP's new scheme Dundee will actually lose almost £5 million by 2025-26. How is that fair for struggling kids in Dundee? Now, let me say I appreciate other areas will see their funding increase. Angus for example will see an increase of almost £877,000 by 2025-26. But it should not be the case that support is reduced for one set of children to help another. That is effectively what the SNP are now doing. The goal must be to help every child who needs it. That is what we all want. The attainment gap closed, education outcomes improved and every child able to succeed regardless of their background. Thank you and I call Co-Capture at the final speaker in the open debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to support the Government's amendment in today's debate and I welcome the range of anti-poverty measures that it highlights. As the head of education services in Glasgow City Council, Jerry Lyons told the education committee on 4 May, the Scottish Government's focus on poverty did not start with the attainment challenge. The attainment challenge allows even greater focus to be put on this policy priority. Over this parliamentary term, the challenge will be supported by £1 billion worth of investment and an increase of £250 million over the last parliamentary term. The refresh announced by the Cabinet Secretary included this increase in investment. It also included a change in the challenges mission to acknowledge that poverty cannot and should not only be tackled during school hours. Increases in the school uniform grant, the expansion of free school meals, the Scottish child payment, all of those policies link into the work of the attainment challenge. The challenge refresh also sees the change to the distribution of funding. As Emma Cosgrove of the Fraser Allander Institute told the education committee, it is an incredibly difficult for a diverse country with different needs in different parts of the country to agree on what the best approach is. The decision to use a funding model based on the children in low-income families data will deliver challenge funding to every local authority in Scotland, including the nine original challenge authorities. This move was welcomed by COSLA and council leaders across the country. The Cabinet Secretary has also delivered a tapered reduction in the year-on-year funding to the nine authorities already in receipt of it to enable them to manage their resources. As Ruth Binks, director of education in Inverclyde Council, told the education committee that the local authorities in receipt of the challenge funding knew that it was not guaranteed year-on-year and that they were regularly challenged on planning on their exit strategy. As Ruth Binks said to the committee, there is poverty throughout Scotland so a revision to the original funding method was merited. I think that it was a fair thing to do. I will take an intervention quickly. I thank the member for taking the intervention. Does the member acknowledge that any cut to Glasgow City Council's funding for support to children who are living in poverty is an unacceptable thing to do? We heard from the committee, from headteachers and from the West Partnership, that any kind of cut requires being looked at. However, they realise that in order for it to be fairly distributed across all local authorities, they accepted that. I welcome the opportunity that Labour has given to the Parliament to reflect on the many ways in which the Scottish Government is delivering funding to reduce the attainment gap, the length and breadth of Scotland, and I thank my colleagues behind me for mentioning some of those so I will not go over them again. The Government is clearly serious about reducing the attainment gap. I am shocked that Labour endlessly chooses to align themselves with the Tories in attacking it when it is taking sustained meaningful action on this hugely important issue. I am just about to finish off by saying that the Education and Skills Committee has taken extensive evidence from teachers and school leaders. I would like to pay tribute to all those people that have worked incredibly hard and quite a few of them put on record the support that they had got from the Scottish Government in being able to do their jobs. I think that when the Opposition benches try to do down education, they are doing our children and our education and disservice and they need to bring that to an end and support practical measures. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you. We now move to closing speeches and I call on Pam Gottle. I am delighted to be closing today on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives and I will be speaking in support of both the Labour motion and the amendment in the name of my colleague Oliver Mundell. We have heard many contributions across the chamber today. Due to the tight timing, I will not be able to mention everybody. However, clearly the mood across the chamber outside the SNP and Greens is that removing the targeted approach is not going to help those children that need it most. It was not surprising to hear today that we have been reminded about Nicola Sturgeon's top priority, which I think everybody in here remembers bar the SNP and Greens. However, I have to say, same old, same old from the SNP benches, having spent years sticking their head in the sand over their failure to close the attainment gap. It does not surprise me to see that nothing has changed. The First Minister declared that closing the attainment gap was a moral challenge and that the First Minister was quite right. However, that only makes it all the more regrettable that, after seven years— I do not have enough time to be honest— talk is cheap, you need to actually do some actions now. However, that only makes it all the most regrettable that, after seven years, this Parliament finds itself debating yet again the SNP's failure to close this gap. Point of order. Point of order. Clare Haughey. Point of order. I feel that intervention there, or that statement by Pam Gossel, was quite rude and condescending. I would just remind members, in contributions, to speak always through the chair and to avoid the use of you. Thank you, Ms Gossel. I will, Presiding Officer. That said, the decision target additional attainment gap funding towards nine challenge authorities was at least a step in the right direction. The decision to remove target additional attainment gap funding from challenge authorities is nothing more than that, actions of the Government that is out of ideas, and has resorted to placing sticky plasters over problems in the desperate hope that things will look better when they are finished. In my region, West Dunbartonshire, those cuts mean a reduction of 58 per cent from 2021 to 2025, equating to over £1.2 million. The newsflash for the SNP cannot improve a targeted, funded system by making the system less targeted, and it does not improve the prospects of defraig children by removing £25 million from their schools. That is especially problematic considering that excluding attainment Scotland funds spending on education has fallen from 2013 to 2019 in nearly all key challenge areas. So really, where does that leave our key challenge areas and the pupils that need this funding most? We know that already the SNP-CC has written to education committee with concerns that large cuts to the most deprived local authorities will result in mass departure of head teachers. The Scottish Government has failed to support disadvantage children. Firstly, by failing to close attainment gap at both primary and secondary level, as pointed out by my colleague Maurice Golden. Secondly, due to the wider under-investment in the schools leading to cuts in teaching posts as my colleague Oliver Mundell rightly acknowledged in his amendment. Thirdly, by retaining a restrictive stance on PEF funding meaning it cannot be used to backfill cuts and does not give the schools autonomy to spend more money where it is needed as rightly asserted by my colleague Megan Gallacher. Last but not least by replacing the attainment challenge fund with the less targeted strategic equity fund in conclusion, we need to see less talking and more action from the SNP Government. Innovation, not stagnation. If the SNP needs some pointers, they should consider our proposals for a curriculum for all which would see funding allocated effectively to encourage responsibility and innovation in our education workforce that would prompt a restoration of high education standards in our classrooms. Thank you, Colin. Shirley-Anne Somerville up to four minutes, cabinet secretary. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. As we look to refresh the Scottish attainment challenge, I think it was important that the government and stakeholders take cognisant of the fact that 59 per cent of children in relative poverty lived outside the challenge authorities. There was general agreement that that model did need to be looked at and we needed to find a fair model. I think that that's exactly why, as Siobhan Brown and others have mentioned, that councillor Stephen McCabe, the coslas then, spokesperson for some children and young people and Labour leader of Enver Clyde Council, did welcome the changes and announced that they welcomed it and the recognition that councils across Scotland would be pivotal in the work to tackle the attainment gap. Ruth Bynch, who has also been quoted within the debate who recently gave evidence to the education committee, did also say that looking at poverty in place in every local authority, the original funding did merit revision. It was the fair thing to do. And, as has been mentioned, these changes will be brought over four years. Martin Whitfield. Very grateful, Presiding Officer. I'm grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking the intervention. Does the Scottish Government have impact assessments on the nine authorities that lost their funding? Cabinet Secretary. Your impact assessments were published when we published the Refresh Scottish attainment challenge programme on 30 March. So we have seen from both councils individually and from COSLA themselves that they recognised that this was an important area for the Scottish Government to look at. That is one of the reasons why we did so. But, understandably, while there has been a consideration of this matter today, we haven't heard as much about the £520 million people equity funding that is going directly to head to... Cabinet secretary, if I might stop you for a moment. I'm aware that there are a lot of conversations taking place across the chamber. I'd be grateful if we could hear the cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We have seen £520 million of people to equity funding going directly to schools. As the guidance makes clear, this is up to headteachers to spend because this Government is putting into action the empowered system that we want to see. Presiding Officer, I have found it difficult to stomach the discussions that we have had from various Opposition parties to simply find the money. A point that Ross Greer and others have pointed to. I would point out that the budget is published every year. Back in the day, Opposition parties put together costed alternative budgets. They put together credible alternatives. Now we have found the money. I think that that is a testimony to the fact that they are so far from Government that they can make demands that they genuinely have no idea how to achieve in a fully allocated budget. We even had Willie Rennie casting us back to the good old days of the Tory Liberal Democrat coalition. I would suggest to Mr Rennie that that is not a pleasant place for the Liberal Democrats to go given how well it went for them recently. We were also challenged to take bold action. I would point to the £1 billion worth of attainment challenge funding that the Government is putting in, the 3,500 additional teachers that we are committed to with our Green Party colleagues. I find it particularly rich that today, of all days, the Labour Party brings this motion together as they make it appear back room deals with the Scottish Conservatives right across the Scotland to make administrations that, quite frankly, make a mockery of any pretence they have about progressive educational politics. That is better together indeed and it is not better for the young people right across Scotland. Ross Greer again said that the best way to tackle the attainment gap is to tackle poverty itself and we will continue to do just that. We will continue to tackle the attainment gap with one hand tied behind our backs because of the continued progress that is being made by the UK Government to make this job more difficult. No thanks to the Tories and their coalition partners, the Labour Party, and it would appear the Liberal Democrats. Thank you. I now call on Martin Woodfield to wind up the debate up to five minutes. I'm very grateful, Presiding Officer, and it is a great pleasure to close this debate in the cauldron of argument and dispute over what is happening in our local councils following the council elections. But let's remember that education, well it either is or it's not your defining mission, and I'm not sure today we have seen a great defence that education is the defining mission of this SNP green government. It is, of course, right. All authorities are now being supported with a budget. But sadly, and the reality is, as Ross Greer pointed out in so many contributions, there are children living in poverty across Scotland. One in four, as my colleague Pan said earlier on, but this should not come at the expense, surely this should not come at the expense of the nine authorities who in 2015 were identified as the areas with the deepest level of poverty across Scotland. The funding allocated to all local authorities going forward should, of course, remain. But it can't be paid for on the back of poor children who are hungry. 0.01% of the budget. I think with respect and Cabinet Secretary should be able to turn to those that discuss finance within the government and say that the funding mission is education. 0.01% will protect the poorest children in Scotland. Cabinet Secretary, we have made clear time and time again that £43 million is spoken about. If the member wants to take this away from health, from justice, from social care that we have just had a debate on, where exactly is that coming from? Because there is no cost of analysis, as Ross Greer pointed out about this that comes forward from the Labour Party. Martin Whitfield. On the back, of course, of a half billion pound underspend this year. So, before I turn to the contributions that have been heard today, let us turn the clock back. I'm not taking an intervention. Let us turn the clock back to 2015 when the first... We will hear Mr Whitfield. Colleagues, we will hear Mr Whitfield. I'm very grateful, Presiding Officer. I will turn the clock back to 2015 to quote from the First Minister whose aspiration was that a child born in that year would have the same chance as everyone else by the time they leave school. That child is now eight years old. How are we doing? Has Maurice Golden so rightly pointed out in his contribution a plummeting in the literacy rates of 72.3 to 66.9, numeracy 79.1 to 74.7, literacy attainment gap 20.7, rising to 24.7 and, of course, the report from Audit Scotland that we have heard today. I look again at what the then cabinet secretary Angela Constance said in 2015 on the launching of this. When it was pointed out that the most disadvantaged 20% of areas do only half as well as their equivalents from the most affluent spoken in this chamber and it was then that Liam McArthur MSP made an intervention and asked about the postcode lottery of the nine attainment areas. The answer, nonetheless, as we move forward we need to invest in a more targeted resource for the children who are most in need. What we have heard today is the effect of that targeted resource in statements from your own backbenchers how the improvements are there in North Asia. But what of going forward? Suddenly they reach their cliff edge. That is the end of it. It goes for 0.01% of your budget. We've heard from a number of people Oliver Mundell and I confirmed to the Conservatives that we will support their amendment but we cannot support the SNP amendment which talks not about how people will be helped in these nine areas. It talks about what will happen coming down the line. Oh, when will that ever be delivered? We heard from Willie Rennie who succinctly put it that the Cabinet Secretary is unable to argue for funding within her own Government for these people. For Neil Bidby who reminded us that the children who are born in our poorest families are being let down today the tartan version of the Tories levelling up. And I welcome Ruth Maguire's confirmation of the attainment challenges in North Ayrshire where the staff had rightly worked so hard to see improvements. Will that continue? Will that continue with a 75% cut? I fear not. Can I just say there was agreement across this entire chamber about the importance of poverty and young people except in the final contribution from Calcab Stewart who was disappointed that members spoke and talked down education. I don't believe anyone in this chamber today talked down education. What we talked down was the pathway to improve our young people. In conclusion, as Michael Marra so succinctly put it, this ludicrous proposition that the best way to give support to poor kids is to cut the support from the areas with the most poor children. Thank you, Presiding Officer. That concludes the debate on protecting attainment funding. It's now time to move on to the next item of business. Point of order, Michelle Thompson. Firstly, I apologise for not being able to give your office advance notice as I would have liked to. Earlier today in the debate, I commented that Robert Kilgour, a well-known Tory donor, made contributions to the Tory party. Having now consulted the Electoral Commission website, I wish to apologise for underreporting the scale of the donations. Can I correct the record? As an individual, Mr Kilgour has made 15 donations either to the Tory party or SP supports the union totalling £76,127 and £76 pence. In addition, via his company Dow Investments, he's made 37 regular donations to the Tory party totalling £222,650. His most recent think tank, the British Civic Institute, has not yet registered with the Electoral Commission, but when it does, I'll make sure to make accurate figures available. Thank you. Thank you, Ms Thompson. That point is now on the record. The next point of order, Sandesh Gohani. I think Michelle Thompson should maybe look at what she actually said on to the record, which was £5,000 per month. Thank you, Mr Gohani. That is not a point of order. We will move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 4461 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and moved. Thank you, Minister. I call on Stephen Kerr to speak to and move amendment 4461.1. I move the amendment in my name, Presiding Officer. Last Wednesday, during Conservative Party business, Transport Minister Jenny Gilruth proudly proclaimed that the missing document in the ferries fiasco had been found. Audit Scotland's reckoning is that key information is still hidden, but the email in question did implicate the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney in the affair. As outlined by Douglas Ross at FMQs the next day, the email clearly shows that Mr Swinney had the final approval. Excuse me a moment, colleagues. Can we please have some peace to hear Mr Kerr? As outlined by Douglas Ross at FMQs the next day, the email clearly shows that Mr Swinney had the final approval and the fact was awarded to Ferguson Marine. That was new information and contradicted the supposed truth that the First Minister had been telling the chamber up to that point, namely that Derek Mackay had the final approval. Indeed, the First Minister continued to purport that line despite Mr Swinney eventually admitting that he had given approval. Therefore, I was rather surprised when my request for an immediate statement from the Deputy First Minister was rejected by the Scottish Government. I was surprised further when it was revealed that neither this week nor next week had any time been set aside for Mr Swinney to outline his actions and answer questions from elected parliamentarians. The Deputy First Minister appeared to have plenty of time to give multiple somewhat contradictory quotes to the media, but had no time to speak to Parliament. Once again, we see just how little this arrogant SNP Government respects Parliament. What is this place for if it is not to be the first line of scrutiny of the Scottish Government? Throughout Covid Parliament was often sidelined. The media were prioritised as the Government's policy announcement hub. This has sadly continued and we are now in the ludicrous position of the media being not only the first line of scrutiny on Mr Swinney in this matter, but the only line of scrutiny. If that remains true then this Parliament has failed. My amendment therefore inserts a statement on the Deputy First Minister next Tuesday after topical questions where he can explain himself to Parliament and answer questions. Presiding Officer we should not have to fight tooth and nail for things like this and now to pre-empt the Minister for Parliamentary Business reply, where he is likely to say that the Deputy First Minister believes there is not enough to say in a statement. I say this. I have seen enough of the Deputy First Minister's statements to know that he is adept at using a lot of words to make very few points so I wouldn't worry. I wouldn't worry. I would... I'm grateful that the SNP acknowledged the truth of what I'm saying so I wouldn't worry about that. We will hear Mr Kerr. But if that is not enough for Mr Adam I think all parties will agree with me. When I say that Mr Swinney's statement need not take up the usual 10 minutes it only needs to be as long as it takes for Mr Swinney to explain his role in the matter and the rest of the time should of course be given to MSPs to provide adequate scrutiny and therefore I encourage all members of the Scottish Parliament to support my amendment so that we can restore some faith in the effectiveness of this Parliament. I call on George Adam to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. Minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and dearie, dearie me. No. It is my intention to stick to the actual facts of the matter at hand and not some flawed interpretation from some in this room. Last week the Scottish Government published the exchange of the 9th of October 2015 setting out that the Deputy First Minister spoke with officials following the approval by the Minister of Transport earlier that day. The short note of that meeting seen in the email trail confirms that the decision was taken by Mr Mackay. It reads, he, Deputy First Minister now understands the background and that Mr Mackay has cleared the proposal. The submission noted that the Deputy First Minister had approved the financial implications, the budget availability, in his role as Finance Minister at that time. This documentation has been published since 2019. This was a major part of last week's First Minister's questions, as alluded to by the chief whip of the Conservative Party, and of a topical question this week. This issue has been discussed on numerous occasions over the last week. If other members wish to discuss things further I would encourage them to use the usual routines as per what we have done in the past. The question is that amendment 4461.1 in the name of Stephen Kerr which seeks to amend motion 4461 in the name of George Adam on setting out a business programme be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.