 The budget right on agenda today is our final session for our Scottish entertainment on equality. I'd like to welcome to the committee room and to the committee children and summerboard. MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, Graham Logan, Director of Learning, and Alison Taylor, Deputy Director for Improvement, Entertainment and Welfare. Gideb i gael y cyfysgol. Felly, yw'r perthyniad fod yn cael ei walr yn unigol ystod a'u gweithio? Rwy'n cael ei fawr oedd ar draws o gweithio,ugiwch, yn gallu gwneud. Felly, gennych chi'n rhaid i ddweud i gael eich bod yn ôl o'r e-, y chargwyr trafn ac mae'n gweithio'i dd cutefau cwmwynt o ffordd. Rydaw i gael, fyddwn i gael y bod yn cael ei neud i gael. Byddwn i'ch gael eich cynno'r gwyrnau, Cyfair, gan sylchion, dyfodwch i gael gael bod yn cyfleoedd eich canfys nhw i gyd am ddyfodol gwahanol yn ymdweithio o'r cyfnod o'r sicrwm gwahanol yn ysgrifennu'n ddoll yn ei chrywgweithiau. Byddwn i'n cyfleoedd o'r gwahanol yn gwylltio, ac mae'n ddych chi oedd ein gan digwydd oherwydd fel ydyn nhw'n cyfleoedd i'r cyfrymau i'r ffordd hefyd, yn cyffredinol wahanol i'r heb gan gwybod, a'i ddiddordeb wahanol yn gangymau sydd yn gwybod o'r cyfnod o'r cyffredin o'r the most difficult of circumstances. I recognise and appreciate the immense efforts that they have taken to ensure our children and young people are given the best care, support and opportunities to achieve their full potential regardless of their background. I know that you too have been struck by the exceptional efforts and good practice taking place in our schools. There is a strong body of evidence that the programme is having a positive impact. The great majority of head teachers, 96 per cent, who responded to the ASF head teacher survey, felt that they had a good awareness of the range of approaches that can help to close the poverty-related detainment gap, while 93 per cent felt confident about selecting the approach that is most effective for their school. I think that we can all and I include myself in that and do more to celebrate what has been achieved. I know too that we all share a determination to intensify the efforts to close the poverty-related detainment gap and to tackle any variation in the outcomes achieved by children in different parts of the country. We expect a need to see results on that. That is why I am committed to working with everyone in education and beyond, including, of course, this committee, to accelerate efforts to achieve excellence and equity for Scotland's children and young people. As we seek to create a more cohesive, simplified and consistent education system to continue delivering excellence and equity for Scotland's learners, we can build on the work that is already being undertaken, as well as the important principles that are set out in Professor Muir's recent report. My appearance here is timely following the successful launch of the Refresh Scories attainment challenge programme at the end of March. Like the committee's wide engagement at this part of this inquiry, we have drawn upon a wide range of evidence and valuable engagement with a range of stakeholders to help to refresh the programme. Reflecting on the evidence, some key considerations were drawn upon in developing the refresh programme. Progress in tackling the poverty-related attainment gap was made before the pandemic. That, alongside the learning through the programme to date, provides a solid foundation on which we can seek to accelerate recovery and process. We recognise the need to make quicker progress, even in relation to pre-pandemic gains, and to tackle variation in outcomes between and within local authority areas. There is a need to address the negative impact of Covid-19 on children's health, wellbeing and learning, improving leadership, learning and teaching, and the quality of support for families and communities, and targeted support for those impacted by poverty remain the key levers to improve outcomes for children and young people. In refreshing the programme, there is an opportunity to reinforce our collective equipment to equity in education, mitigate the impact of poverty on children's outcomes and tackle the attainment gap. That is evident in the mission of the refresh challenge to use education to improve outcomes for children and young people impacted by poverty, with a focus on tackling the poverty-related attainment gap. That mission gives greater focus on outcomes and everything that underpins positive outcomes for children and young people, including their health and wellbeing, their wider achievements and experiences, as well as their academic attainment. The new framework for recovery and accelerating progress will underpin the ambition of the refreshed mission and has been developed to reinforce our collective commitment to equity in education and set high expectations, including ambitious locally identified stretch aims. All of that is backed by an increased £1 billion additional investment, which is empowering local authorities and our headteachers who know their children best. That includes the commitment of more than £520 million of people's equity funding over four years, empowering our headteachers and allowing them to plan over short and longer terms. We know that schools cannot do that alone, so in recognition that poverty exists in all local authorities, funding will now go direct to each and every local authority for the very first time, supporting them to develop strategic approaches to working with schools, wider local authority services and national community partners. Stretch aims will be developed by each local authority, so we will know how much progress is expected and by when, with an offer to provide tailored support and challenge to Education Scotland and the regional improvement collaboratives. That approach was developed and agreed with partners, including local government and headteachers. Multi-year allocations confirmed over a four-year period will also allow local authorities to plan for the longer term. The refreshed programme will also provide continued additional support for care experienced children and young people through the Care Experienced Children and Young People Fund. There are also a number of national programmes, including a number of third sector organisations who will also be supported. I would like to close by stressing that nothing is more important than ensuring that every child and young person has the same opportunity to exceed in education, regardless of their background, and I believe that the refreshed Scottish attainment challenge will help to deliver this for them. However, as the challenges of the pandemic and the cost of living crisis continues, and as some of the evidence to date shows, we know that there is more to do. I am very pleased to be able to take part in the discussion in the debate with the committee on how we do just that. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Let me begin the questioning this morning, then, with a very simple question. Is it still your plan to close the attainment gap? And when will we see improvement to the extent that that gap has been closed? I think that one of the important aspects that we have looked at as we have refreshed our Scottish attainment challenge is the stretchings. I would point to that as an important development that we have seen. I am not going to set an arbitrary date on when the attainment gap will be closed, particularly so close to the experiences that we are still having with the pandemic. We know that the pandemic has had an impact on attainment, but what we very much intend to do through the stretchings and through working with local authorities is for local authorities to be able to determine what can be done in their area and what support is required from our national agencies to be able to support them to do so. You mentioned local authorities having stretch aims or targets. What is the Government's stretch target for the funding if you are not prepared to commit to timetabling or signposting? Audit Scotland did specifically say in relation to the fund that the Scottish Government needs to be clearer about the anticipated pace of change, identifying measures against appropriate milestones and considering the lessons about what works in determining how funding is directed. What you seem to be saying is that you are not prepared to say any of that. You are not prepared to give any milestones. You are not prepared to give any measurements. I think that there are two approaches that you can have with this type of work. You can do it in a top-down approach, sitting in St Andrew's house where I dictate a policy and then a target. Or you can work with local government who have the responsibility to deliver education so that we are working in partnership nationally with local government for the local government to be able to set the aims that are correct for their area. There will be a difference in different local authority aims that they come through. I prefer not to have a top-down approach to this. I prefer to work with local government. Of course, our ambition is no less than to close the attainment gap, but we need to recognise that that is a long-term endeavour. What does that mean? Audit Scotland has said that reducing the poverty-related attainment gap is a complex challenge and will take time. It will take time to deliver the reductions in the poverty-related attainment gap, but we are determined to see a greater pace of progress than we were before the pandemic. That is what the stretch aims are an important part of. I am not asking you to dictate to anybody or anything, but you have a responsibility. You have spent £200 million a year on that. You have a responsibility to set out what your expectation is and what outcomes we expect. In terms of stretch aims, what is your expectation in relation to closing the poverty-related attainment gap? This year, next five years or whatever it is, it would be very helpful to the committee and I think to the public at large. Certainly to Audit Scotland, if you would be more specific. I would hope that when Audit Scotland comes to review this process again, as I am sure it will, I hope that it will appreciate the fact that we are working with local government in this area. We are collating the local aims and that will help us to provide a picture of what will happen nationally. What about setting expectations? What are your expectations in relation to closing the attainment gap? My expectations is that every single local authority will work with Education Scotland as they deliver their stretch aims for them to be as challenging as possible. Those will differ. But none of that is very measurable, is it, cabinet secretary? That is the problem. With the great suspect committee, it will be measurable once the local authorities have developed their stretch aims, which my understanding is that they will be developed by September. For the new academic year, it has begun. They are very accountable, they will be very obvious and they will be very measurable and we will be able to measure the progress in that. What I am very clear about is that we need to see more transparency in this area. I think that we have listened as a national government to what Audit Scotland said in this area. Once the data is in a state to be able to be published, once we have collated all that data from the local authorities, there I absolutely see no reason for that. I would expect local authorities to be able to publish that data as and when they stretch their stretch aims because it is part of their local improvement work. That should not be a secretive manner of development, either at a local level or at a national level. Yes, we will absolutely make sure that the material will be published to allow people to be able to see what is happening locally and to see what is happening at a national level. The framework stipulates that your responsibility is to collect data. So when will the Scottish Government be publishing this data that you are describing? The stretch aims need to be in by September for local authorities. Once those are collated and we are ensuring that we have the correct information from local authorities, I would like to publish very soon after that. Can you come to this with a slightly different direction, Cabinet Secretary, and perhaps get a more detailed answer? I always need to point the convener's making. If we approach this from the bottom up, teachers that we have spoken to in our evidence gathering have been very clear about firstly the impact that the pandemic has been significant, so we have to recognise that. We also have the cost of living crisis, but they have also acknowledged that they now have a much clearer idea of what works in terms of addressing the attainment challenge. If we have that, we have the funding in place and the Government is providing the direction. Looking at all that in the round, would it be reasonable to expect that in the coming years, the next few years, we will begin to see further and quite significant progress being made if those foundations are in place? I think that we would expect to see significant progress in this. The challenge, of course, we have, by coming out of Covid, is that the progress that was being made pre-pandemic has been impacted by Covid. As teachers are doing day and day, that is to be able to support children and young people through the impact of Covid. However, the entire purpose of having the refresh and making the changes that we have is that we not only expect to see progress, but we would expect to see accelerated progress from what we did at pre-pandemic levels. Thank you. How much money has been spent so far in the attainment Scotland fund? How much have already been spent? So, in total, in the previous parliamentary term, we had £750 million spent on attainment challenge, and at this parliamentary term, it is £1 billion. So far, with one year of this parliamentary session in, it is about £1 billion? Approximately, yes. So, do you know how this money has been spent? Well, yes. The money, obviously, is allocated to local authorities or directly to schools. What we have also made sure through the work with Education Scotland is that Education Scotland has been working with local government and with schools to be able to see the best practice about how that money has been spent, the projects that have worked. But can you publish how that money has been spent? Can you give a full accounting to Parliament, to the country, as to how £1 billion has been spent? Can you give an accounting for that? Well, the figures are there for what goes to local government. No, no. What has it been spent on? Not how much has been allocated, but what has it been spent on? So, each individual school will, of course, determine, for example, how the peff money has been spent. We do not collate the database for every single school and every single project. So, is it fair to say that you do not know how that money has been spent? It is up to individual schools to be able to determine the programmes that they have. And then Education Scotland has, of course, worked with schools to be able to collate information. I do not have to hand the information about, obviously, how each individual school has spent their money, but it is for Education Scotland to be able to link with the schools to determine how they have spent the money and also to be able to work out what has worked and what has not worked. But what we are keen to do in this new refreshed attainment challenge is to have more of a link between the local authority and the school so that they are collating also the information about how money is being spent. Do you think that it is unfair of me to say that if you do not know how a billion pounds has been spent, because that is effectively what your answer is, how can you measure whether it has been effectively spent in terms of outcomes? Well, I do not have the information to hand today, convener. That is what this session is all about. I do not have the information to hand. I do not think that the committee would expect me to have how every single school has spent their money as I sit in front of committee. That is not what I am asking for. What we absolutely have is the school and local authority plans and reports. They are a condition of the grant. I am guessing that for Education Scotland we would be happy to provide further advice after this, but it is the condition of grant to be able to ensure that the schools or the local authority are working with Education Scotland on the projects and also, importantly, having the discussion about what has worked and what has had the greatest impact. We, of course, then have the annual evaluation reports that look at a range of different expenditure, but it is part of our empowerment agenda to empower headteachers to determine how to spend money. Then, of course, our agencies are there to assist them to ensure that the money is being spent effectively and that other schools are learning from that. That is fair enough, but you still have an accountability for £1 billion of public money and how it is spent and what the outcomes are for that spending. I do not detect that you are shirking that responsibility. I think that I have said in your answers to my questions that you are going to provide us with more written detail as to what that money has been spent on. We absolutely would be happy to provide the further information about the relationship between Education Scotland, local authorities and the schools and how the money is spent, but I do not have that detail. Because we all want that money to produce the outcome that we all want, which is that the attainment gap is narrow, that attainment in general rises, and that that gap, particularly the poverty-related gap, is closed. We all want that, so we need to see that happening with the commitment that the Scottish taxpayers made of £1 billion in that direction. One last very quick question before I pass on to the deputy convener. You meet, in the time that you have been the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, you have not had a meeting with Education Scotland to discuss the detail of what is happening in terms of this money and the progress that is being made or the measurements that need to be provided. That is correct, is not it? You have not had a meeting where you have discussed that yet. I meet Education Scotland on a regular basis at different levels within the organisation to discuss a wide variety of views. I am sure that, as the committee would expect, the Scottish attainment challenge comes up very regularly during those discussions. Both the use of the previous funding, the development of the REFESH funding and how that is going to develop. I meet Education Scotland on an exceptionally regular basis. It is just that Education Scotland said that it had had one meeting with you to discuss the measurement of this money and the progress that is being made. Was that a meeting to discuss the process rather than the actual process? What we have had within the REFESH work that we have had is a meeting to discuss the process for the REFESH work. That is the quarterly meetings that I will have with Education Scotland to discuss the REFESH work that is happening. However, of course, I have met Education Scotland on numerous— The specific purpose of those meetings is the focus of our inquiry, but those meetings were not happening before now, that is what I am saying. They were happening in a different guise in different areas. We have tried to make sure that we have a specific meeting to go over aspects of this, but they will not be the only meetings that I will have with Education Scotland. No, that is the focus of this particular meeting. The minutes of the last meeting that you held, where this was the focus of the discussion, are those published? Are the presentations shared? I am not aware of whether they are published, but I would be happy to ensure that the minutes of the quarterly meetings are provided and on an on-going basis. However, I would stress that that is one meeting that I have with Education Scotland to discuss the Scottish Tainment Challenge. I appreciate that, but it is the meeting that is focused on the specific area that we are inquiring into. If those minutes are available in terms of the data and the measurements and all the stuff that we are really interested in, that would be fantastic. We look forward to that. Thank you, convener. Good morning, everyone. It has been a fascinating discussion so far. I am just going to refer a wee bit to, obviously, you acknowledge that we have taken extensive evidence over the last sort of months on this. Parents, young people and teachers were saying that, prior to Covid, there was progress that was being made regarding closing the attainment gap, albeit modest, but nevertheless we were moving in the right direction. It is inevitable to anybody. It is very clear that Covid has had an impact on that. Could the cabinet secretary please just briefly—I know that we do not have a huge amount of time— on the highlights of the progress that you think has been made in closing the poverty-related attainment gap? Has the Scottish Government considered widening the definitions of measuring that attainment? Clearly, as I have said already, the pandemic has had an impact on the progress that was being made. However, when we look at the pre-pandemic figures—for example, the year-on-year trend and the ASL data that is published was positive—we saw in the two-year period between 16, 17 and 18, 19, the proportions of primary school pupils achieving expected levels in literacy increased by 3.1 per cent, and it rose 2.7 per cent for numeracy in this period. The gaps between the proportion of primary schools from the most and least deprived areas that achieved their expected level in literacy and numeracy had both reduced. While we had seen progress in this, and while we continue to see very good statistics for those who are leaving school and going on to positive destinations—indeed, they are now at a record level—we are keen to see further progress and more accelerated progress in that. It is a complex area—I know that from teaching within for many years—that it is not just about education when you are looking at the poverty-related—the poverty bit sometimes gets taken off that. How does the Scottish Government challenge fit into the Scottish Government's overall approach to tackling child poverty? Inevitably, one aspect has—if people do not have enough money, for instance, if parents do not and a child is not ready to learn because they are hungry, that makes it even more challenging for teachers as well. The two things go together. As I said just to repeat for you, how does the Scottish attainment challenge fit into the Scottish Government's overall plan? I mentioned in my introductory remarks that we had changed the mission of the Scottish attainment challenge programme. That was very clearly to draw further focus to the fact that we can do a lot within education to be able to improve outcomes for children and young people. We are exceptionally aware of the fact that poverty is not something that can be solved between the hours of nine and three when a child is in school, but what happens outwith that is exceptionally important. That is why we are keen to ensure that there is a very specific link between the education work and, for example, the work that is happening in the Tackled Child Poverty Delivery Plan around the increases to Scottish child payment, the work that is being done to take account of the cost of the school day, increasing to school clothing grants, for example, the ability for children and young people to take any subject without having to receive charges for those and core curriculum charges, music charges, etc. We are very determined to ensure that the education and anti-poverty work is linked very specifically. That is made more difficult when we have, of course, the cost of living crisis and we have the impact also of policies that are happening elsewhere in the UK and dictated to by the UK Government. That is impacting on poverty levels too, but certainly within what we have, the ability to control up here, we are very keen to make sure that there is a very expressed link between what is happening within education and what is happening in the wider anti-poverty work. I am interested in how we got here. What is your assessment as to why the poverty-related attainment gap was so wide and why we got such a critical report from the OECD back in 2015? What are the root causes of that? I think that the poverty-related attainment gap is something that you will see across many different countries. It is not something that is specific to Scotland. We see those same challenges happening elsewhere in the UK or, indeed, further afield. What we have seen in Scotland is a determination to be able to tackle that. I do not want to go on to what is next. I want to focus on how we got here. You have addressed the fact that it happens elsewhere, but I want to know why it happened here and why the rest of the OECD report, which covered a whole lot of other areas in terms of education, was so critical. Do we understand how we got here? I think that the OECD reports that we have had over a number of years have continued to say that there is room for improvement within Scottish education, and that we have a good foundation for Scottish education. I will push back on the fact that the OECD is critical of Scottish education, because I do not think that that is a fair reflection of the fact that it has produced reports that have endorsed curriculum for excellence and that it has encouraged us to develop the way that it is. It is very important that I push back on the OECD being critical. We are in politics to try to improve things, aren't we? That is why we are here. If we just keep on going on about the positive things, we are not going to make any progress, we need to identify why things were going wrong in many areas that the OECD did highlight. Do you understand what those things are? There are a number of areas that the OECD has suggested that we have looked at over the years. One of them was about strengthening the middle, as it was paraphrased. That was therefore one of the reasons why we looked at regional improvement collaboratives, more collaborative workings between local authorities. There has also been a discussion about the empowerment of our teaching workforce to ensure that we have a workforce that is empowered and enabled to be able to take decisions that are right for their school. That has been an important change that we have had. Some of the reasons why we may have had difficulties in the past is not just the levels of poverty in the country, but also because perhaps we needed to ensure that there was more power being put to local authorities, more power being put to individual headteachers and the work that was going on to collaborate on that. The reason why I am asking this question is that I have never heard any Government minister explain what went wrong. They always leap immediately to apparent solutions and quite radical solutions in some areas. It is quite a departure from past practice to have significant funds invested in the poverty-related attainment gap, but nobody has ever explained to me what went wrong in the first place. You have not been able to do it today, you have immediately lept towards solutions. I do not think that we are going to make any progress on that, but I would like the minister to reflect on that, because I think that we do need to understand what went wrong if we are going to fix it. With respect, I think that I have said that poverty is one of the key challenges that we have in Scotland, as we have in other countries, and how we have had a system that has perhaps been too top-down and not allowed an empowered workforce to be able to take decisions that are right for them is one of the lessons that we have had to learn. If we are looking at what we needed to improve on, both from the OECD in 2015 and again their further encouragement in their latest report, it is about ensuring that we are empowering a system and providing resources to that empowered system. I just want to challenge your claim that things were getting better before the pandemic. On a number of indicators that I have looked at, the gap is widened. On S3, literacy is widened from 13.6 to 13.8 between 16 and 18. Level 4 of the SQF is widened from 6.5 to 7.1 between 2018 and 2019. Level 6 is widened from 35 to 36 points in 2018 and 2019. That was all before the pandemic, so why do you say that things got better? Because of the statistics that I read out earlier on. We knew that we were making an impact because of the statistics that I read out to the member earlier on, but we knew that we had to do more and we knew that there were areas that we still needed to improve on, which is exactly why we have had the refresh. I certainly want to sit here and say that everything before the pre-pandemic was going at the pace or urgency that we would have liked, which is exactly why we have refreshed the system. However, it was going backwards. It was not as if more progress had been made. Progress was not being made in the indicators that I have just listed there, so why are you just selectively quoting the ones that perhaps have got—I have to say that it is not big improvements, it is tiny margins. There is still a big poverty-related attainment gap of 35 points at level 6, so those gaps are enormous and we are making infinitesimal improvements. If we were going to spend £1 billion, surely you would expect something that better than that. We are seeing improvements in Cary, as we were pre-pandemic. We have also seen that the evaluation of the Scottish attainment challenge in general was that good progress was being made. We, for example, now have a much more empowered system in which headteachers are much more knowledgeable and able to pick projects that work correctly for their schools and that they feel that they can therefore determine what is driven in that school. We know that there was progress made in areas. We know that there is more to do, but I would point out again to not just the five-year evaluation report showing good progress, but the fact that we have a record high proportion of school leavers entering positive destinations upon leaving school. So, while I absolutely accept that there is more to do, I would say that when we look at the school level destinations, for example, when we look at the ASL stats that I read out earlier on, yes, there is progress, but it needs to be accelerated. I would dispute that there is progress in the way that you described. I think that we need to be honest about how much progress we are making, because it was claimed initially that we are going to close the poverty-related attainment gap completely. I have heard ministers roll back a little bit on the completely benefit, saying that it might not be possible to close it altogether. The First Minister used to say that it had guiding mission or top priority. We do not hear or say much about it any more. Now we also hear that it is a very long-term project. I get a feeling that ministers are backing off how much progress we are going to be making on that. Now, tell me that that is not the case, because I want to— It is not the case. Definitely not the case. It is not the case. I would like to hear us getting more definitive targets, which we were unable to give the convener earlier on. I would like us to be making more progress rather than dressing up stagnation as progress. Can you give me that assurance that that is going to happen? You will see information about the stretch aims. I am not going to make any apologies for the fact that, as the Cabinet Secretary for Education, I am working with local government to allow them to be able to develop stretch aims being supported by our national agencies. I would have hoped, given your commitment to local government and empowering local government, that the committee would be pleased that we are not dictating from the centre, but we are working with local government to deliver the stretch aims, which will be publicly available, but we are working together with people. I am not sure that the last time that the First Minister was ever asked the question is at her defining mission, but it is absolutely the defining mission of this Government to close the poverty-related attainment gap. It has always been a long-term process. The project was made very clear right from the start. As has OECD or at Scotland, it has again been very clear that it will always be a long-term project, but we will and are determined to see more accelerated progress. If we had kept up with inflation from when the people equity fund was introduced, it would now be worth £130 million. Inflation today is up at 9 per cent, which could be much higher than that. However, we have not got a commitment from the Government to raise it higher than the £120 million that it is currently set. It was set at £120 million, and it is now at £127 million. We have not had any guarantee that it will be rising with inflation over the next period. Why has it not been guaranteed to increase? What we have guaranteed is that there will be £1 billion worth of expenditure over this parliamentary term in the Scottish attainment challenge. What we have for the first time are long-term commitments from the Government, which was a key ask of both local government and head teachers, that it was not year-on-year funding but that it was guaranteed funding. That is exactly what we have done. There is £520 million of people equity funding that will be distributed to schools, and that is providing further certainty. We have also provided an uplift in the PEP for pupil this year as well. I think that what we have seen is a recognition of the fact that there needs to be a long-term commitment to this. That is what the Government has done—that we have guaranteed the funding that will be there for the next four years. It is not as valuable as it was when it was first introduced, because it should be 130 and it is short of that. There is no guarantee that it will increase when inflation is going through the roof. Surely we should be trying to give some guarantees that this is a top priority and therefore will be index-linked. I would point to the fact that we have seen an uplift in PEP per pupil number that is given to local authorities, but this year we have established that. We have guaranteed the billion pounds worth of expenditure over the parliamentary term. There is, of course, a process that we will go through on an annual basis that will look at educational funding in addition to what happens within the Scottish attainment challenge, but this is the area where we have been able to guarantee funding in the long term and that has been welcomed by local authorities and by headteachers. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary. My questions were around the role of local authorities and some of the variation. Quite a bit of that has been covered perhaps in your interactions with the convener on the role of local authorities in the revised approach. Obviously now money is going to all 32 local authorities to get multi-year funding. What duties are being placed on local authorities in this regard in terms of accountability? It is an important change that we have made in recognition that poverty exists in every area of Scotland. It is very important that we look at the role of local authorities and work with local authorities to be able to provide them with additional support to undertake the work that they are doing. We recognise that, within national government, we see variation in local authorities and between local authorities. One of the reasons behind the introduction of the stretch aims is to attempt to tackle the unwarranted variation that we have between local authorities and the hope that that transparent mechanism that we are putting into the system gives a clear understanding of the local ambitions that we have. We are very clear that we need to really reduce that unwarranted variation. There will be a constructive challenge and support going to all local authorities to ensure that they are ambitious in what they are developing. We will, of course, do that through the support of Education Scotland, but we know that there is variation in outcomes between local authorities. It is often talked about. I think that the work that local authorities are doing through, for example, the collaborative work that they are working on Education Scotland will assist with some of that, but we know that we have more to do to be able to tackle that. Thank you. You mentioned Education Scotland providing constructive challenge to local authorities. I wonder if you can say a little bit more about that, I guess, because we all look for simple answers and perhaps look for a uniformed approach across things because it can be easier to measure. We need to have local variation but also have that challenge where things are not successful. Can you say a bit more about the actual mechanism of that? I should be clear that we are not wanting to stop local variation in how schools develop policies and in the way that they tackle the attainment gap, but what we are concerned about is the variation in outcomes at the end of the days. We are certainly not looking at a one-size-fits-all, but within Education Scotland there is obviously a great deal of work to provide universal support to all the local authorities that we have within Scotland. There is more targeted support that they can give to local authorities that are most in need, so that might be one of the ways that they could do that is through looking at the highest levels of poverty in an area or in a dialogue with a local authority where that more targeted support has been identified either by Education Scotland or by the local authority. There is also intensive support that can be provided when we are seeing limited progress. One of the key aspects of Education Scotland work is to ensure that there is for every local authority, but it is also there to be able to support, absolutely support and work collaboratively with schools and with local authorities, but to challenge where necessary if they are not seeing the progress that one might have expected through this. Just for myself, because I am fairly new to the committee. Just to get a bit more specific about where that challenge happens, who is providing the challenge, what is the forum, where is it happening, is it within the regional collaboratives or what does it look like? It can happen in a number of different ways. The regional improvement collaboratives is an important aspect to allow local authorities to work together to collaborate and to share good practice and support each other through this. Education Scotland will be having numerous conversations directly with schools or with the local authority central teams, for example, to be able to look at the work that is going on. One of the areas that I would point to within the work of Education Scotland is, of course, the 32 attainment advisers that are within the agency to be able to provide that support and where necessary challenge to a local authority. However, it is very much intended to be a collaborative process. It is there to be a supportive process. I think that I have not met people within the education system that are not wanting to see change, but there is an ability for Education Scotland, of course, to escalate those measures and to have further discussions with local authorities should they feel the needs to do that. As well as the scrutiny at parliamentary level, the local authority scrutiny from their politicians is important as well. As you said, this is not just about local authorities. We are very clear within the national government that we should work in partnership with local government where at all possible on many of those issues. As I have also said, the work that we are doing, for example, around stretch aims, is something that many local authorities were doing to some extent. What we are trying to do now is to ensure that all local authorities are taken part in that process and that there is a transparency around that improvement work. Of course, education is the responsibility of the local authority to be able to deliver those decisions quite rightly, taken at a local authority or indeed a school level. There is very much a responsibility on the local authority to challenge themselves on why there is a variation either within their local authority or to another local authority, just as you would expect the national government to be able to challenge itself on what is within its responsibilities to be able to target it as well. The role and responsibility of local government is, again, I hope, something that is very clear in the refreshed attainment challenge where we set out the roles and responsibilities of the different parts of the system. The Deputy First Minister told the committee on 23 May 2018 that the utilisation of PEF for the replacement of a service that was there before was unacceptable and would be a breach of conditions of grant. Does that remain Scottish Government policy? It is very clear that PEF funding is additional. The evidence that the committee has had from directors of education, for example, showed very clearly that that was the director of education's view on those issues. Does the cabinet secretary then agree that where services have been withdrawn due to pressure on local authority budgets and schools maintaining those services through PEF, that constitutes substitution for cuts would not be allowed? I would point to the evidence that the committee has already heard from a director of education where the director of education has said that priorities may change within a local authority, so a local authority may determine that priorities have changed within their area. Is this absolutely their right to be able to do? A headteacher can then decide that they would wish to keep that service even if a local authority has changed its priorities. I think that a headteacher has been amply demonstrated by the director of education that was talking about that those things can happen and that is the reason why. I find that a little bit contradictory if you bear with me, because I think that this is a matter of concern for people who are charged with implementing the policy on the ground, the headteachers, for instance. If they see cuts to the Scottish attainment challenge money in their area, you are now saying that you can use PEF money to pay for those services instead. What I am saying is that if a local authority decides to change its priorities at a local authority level, which, of course, would be under the direction of the local administration, if it decides to change priorities, then a headteacher can determine a project. Again, I point not to my opinion on that but to the director of education, who gave an example of how that might happen. You are referring to one of the 32 directors of education in Scotland? I am referring to one of the four who was sitting in front of the committee. Yes, absolutely. To be clear, if I had conversations with other directors of education, it would perhaps feel less clear on that point. I am just trying to get clarity for them if that is fair. I refer to the report that you will not have in front of you, which is a report from Dundee City Council. Dundee City Council is dealing with a 79 per cent cut in the Scottish attainment challenge funding. The report, which was on 24 January this year, identifies 106 posts that have to be cut as a result of the £5 million reduction in funding from the Government. We had Jim Thullis in front of us a few weeks ago, who is a former headteacher from Dundee, who said that he was trying to understand how Dundee would cope, but he did not think that he could on that basis. However, the report says that supports that will no longer be essentially funded from this funding as schools can now procure the services if required. That backs up what you say, so using PEP money to pay for SAC cuts. Is that fair? We have made very clear through the process as we have looked at the Scottish attainment challenges that we need to recognise that poverty exists in all 32 local authority areas. We were very clear that we needed to work on a fair funding model across Scotland to ensure that we were delivering support right across Scotland. I believe that Mr Marra said in a previous evidence session that he recognised that poverty exists right across Scotland. The Scottish Government has a responsibility to have a funding package in place that recognises that and provides funding to every local authority. Everyone agreed that there needed to be a fair model from that, and that is what we have delivered through the new funding allocations. I do not think that that is really an answer to my question, which is to try to get clarity for that. What you are saying now is that PEP money in Dundee should, and it is possible, to spend it to backfill the cuts that you have made? I would not dictate at all how Dundee or any other local authority will deal with education. That is for them to do, but I think that you have been given evidence that not just by one of the four directors that were in front of you but by others, but that there is a holistic approach to funding. Of course local authorities will take their decisions on that, and a headteacher can use PEP funding if they wish to do so following the local authority's decisions. That poses all kinds of other questions about the multiplier effect of the cuts. What you are asking us to believe in this, cabinet secretary, is that the way to give support to poor kids is to cut support for the areas that have the most poor kids. Is that correct? What we have seen is that 59 per cent of children's relative poverty live outside the challenge authorities. If we had stayed with the formula as it was before, we would be ignoring the 59 per cent of children's relative poverty that are in other parts of Scotland. To be fair, that was your policy, cabinet secretary. It was not our policy, it was not my policy in concentrating on ignoring those people. It is good that the money is now available to local authorities. Fife is up £2 million under the new formula. Over the last decade, it has lost £290 million in terms of cuts that it has made. It is understandable that Fife Council welcomes that £2 million, but it does not really deal with the issue that I am focusing on in terms of the levels of multiple deprivation in those challenge authorities that were picked on that basis—deep poverty, huge barriers. Surely within that, we are talking about rising to £25 million this year over the course of this Parliament. Surely we can see it within the Government's heart to put that money back. Surely to protect those 106 posts. Those people are speech and language therapists who are working with the absolutely poorest kids and those are the posts that are under threat, for instance. I would point to the fact that the IFS has calculated that school spending for people is higher in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK and, indeed, spending is 15.6 per cent higher than in 2014-15 in real terms. It has supported education. The IFS figures on percentages about England are pretty cold comfort to the people in Charleston and to those who are losing posts for people who work directly with their children. Can you address those concerns rather than those numbers? You insinuated that there were difficulties with education expenditure overall in different local authorities, so I would merely point the committee to the actual education expenditure that we are seeing overall. However, what we have very much looked to do is provide a fair funding for England for right across Scotland. The allocations that were distributed to the nine local authorities were determined based on bespoke bids for resource rather than on a data-driven approach, so we have moved to a distribution that recognises that poverty exists in every local authority in Scotland. I would point to that 59 per cent figure that I mentioned earlier. I would also point to one of the other directors of education that was in front of you before Ruth Binks from Inverclyde, who made very clear in her testimony that, when we started, and I am quoting a convener, when we started as attainment challenge authorities, we were very much told that we were pathfinders looking at how to make things work. We were asked to adapt and adopt. That is what they did. I think that that is very important about the context that the committee was in. The invitation has been given to me to find the money of an extra £43 million within the education budget. There is not £43 million not being spent within the education, but there is sitting spare. If the committee of the member would— The turnout figures for this year indicate that £20 million underspanned. With that not start, £6 million is the figure for this year. The turnout figures to be confirmed in June indicate £20 million underspanned in the education budget. Part of the important area that we work with local authorities is that we allow a roll-on for money to allow local authorities to be able to blend. I would point again to the fact that even if that £6 million was not still going to be used within education, that still leaves a substantial gap. There is not £43 million unallocated within my education portfolio. The difficulty, as with all those things, if the member thinks that I should be spending additional money, should it come from early years education? Should it come from the fact that we took away core curriculum charges? Should I reduce the school clothing grant? It all has to come from somewhere with the greatest respect. I cannot just make sure that there are £43 million additional funding that I would put in. With the greatest respect, I did identify the underspanned area. If I can come, I cited some evidence sessions that we have had. If I can say that, in regard to Inver Clyde, we had a headteacher who said in evidence with us on the 9th of May that teachers are, and I quote, raging, and that the single thing that he could do to improve the system was to put back the biggest cut, that would be the thing that would improve the scheme, put back the cut that you are making. I can also just cite the evidence of Andrea Bradley, the EIS, saying that they are absolutely appalled at the levels of funding cuts to the challenge authorities. It 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. The NASUWT said that it is clearly not right to be making these swinging cuts. Jim Thull, a school leader start in Scotland, said that it is immoral to take away that funding. Can you direct it to those communities directly? Are you prepared to apologise for the impact of this? If you are saying that you are not going to put the money back, can you apologise? The only way that the money could be put back is if I took it off the other local authorities that would have it for the first time. If that is what the member is suggesting, you are suggesting that I find additional money that I do not have. For example, the £6 million that you are quoting would take further PEF money from schools. If you are suggesting that part of that way that we could allocate is by taking that £6 million at current underspent that is in PEF that will still remain with schools, I do not think that that is a sensible way forward. That allocation has been an attempt to ensure that there is a fair funding formula right across Scotland. I think that there was an understanding, as has been shown in some of the evidence from your directors of education, that we needed to look for a fair funding formula right across Scotland. I would point to the fact that that was also worked with and agreed by COSLA. Yes, those are difficult decisions that the Government has to take, but the importance of ensuring that we recognise the poverty that exists across all local authority areas and that we dealt with that and the impact of the Covid pandemic across all 32 local authorities led us to change the funding formula. There is not additional money within my portfolio, there is not being spent, so it would have to come from somewhere else within my portfolio. Your failure to win arguments with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance about your budget is frankly not just a concern that we have here. If you would like to take it away from somebody else's portfolio, health, justice, social care—I am afraid that representations will have from across the sector, not just secondary school, primary school, tertiary as well. I do not think that we are going to agree in terms of what is happening here. We are taking money away from the Scottish Government from the poorest communities and the poorest kids paying the cost of other kids in poverty across Scotland. Those kids require funding, but I cannot agree that it has to come at the expense of the kids in the poorest community in this country. Clearly, the Cabinet Secretary does not rest on that. Bob Doris is the member who suggests where the money should come from and, if it is not from education, what part of the budget it is. Thank you very much, convener. I thought that I would enter down to this afternoon's education debate early. I thought that we would be an inquire into the Tainment Fund, but there we are. I would like to look at a wee bit about measures of success and evaluation around that. I thought that Mr Rennie had a really interesting line of questioning where he thought that progress, including the Tainment Gap, had not occurred in any meaningful way. I am going to put some statistics on the record, convener, as I have done before, and I will make a comment on them with a question to the cabinet secretary. Two years before the pandemic, literacy was up 3.1 per cent in primary schools and numeracy was up 2.7 per cent in relation to the standards that were expected. The gap between school leavers and the most least deprived areas achieving one pass or more at SCV Q-Level 5 are better, reduced by 12.5 per cent, between 2019 and 2020. Last year, convener, as you know, I was very proud to talk about a school in my constituency that had 100 per cent positive destinations at Rock Secondary in Royston and record positive destinations in Glasgow and mostly across the country. Those statistics suit Government and the cabinet secretary. However, there are three indicators of a snapshot of progress under the ones that might suit Government. How, cabinet secretary, do we have a balanced approach to monitoring and evaluating progress? Is it the 11 indicators in the national improvement framework? Is there an agreed dashboard of progress that we can look at at a national level? Is the convener wanting to get under the skin at a local authority level as well? Having looked at some of the documentation around the attainment challenge evaluations and refresh, it is pretty hard going through it, cabinet secretary. How do we get clear, transparent indicators or a dashboard, if you like, that allows the committee and the education sector general to have a balanced view of how the Scottish Government is not succeeding in addressing the attainment challenge? The important areas that we are looking at are within the national improvement framework and the measures that are in it. We are currently consulting on the measures within the NIF to ensure that the data that is being collected is the right measures so that we can ensure that we are collecting material that is useful to both Government and teachers. When we are looking at the stretch aims that are coming out from local government, we will clearly look at core areas around numeracy and literacy, but it is a core-plus model in which local authorities are also asked to look at wider areas around health and wellbeing to ensure that we are able to determine not just the impact on the attainment but the impact on other parts of a child and young person's progress. However, I can perhaps bring in Graham Logan to talk about the dashboard that is published and the information that is in it. Mr Doris, the answer is that we publish data across the 11 core national improvement framework measures. Those 11 measures were developed after an extensive consultation to ensure that we are taking a balanced approach to looking at attainment gaps. It is not just literacy in numeracy, but it is things such as participation measures. It includes things such as the 27 to 30 months review for the youngest children so that we are identifying gaps as early as we possibly can. That is published annually in December as part of the national improvement framework report. Since the national improvement framework was introduced in the last Parliament, more data on school performance than before. We have school-level data published against a number of those measures, which can be seen by parents and carers in terms of that school level and locally and nationally as well. Is that replicated across the 32 local authorities? We get a national flavour, but most get to see any local variation that is there because I know that the committee's heard that there might be different ways that local authorities collect and present the data. The national improvement framework includes analysis nationally and also includes a breakdown as well across local authorities. We are in discussion with local government colleagues. As the cabinet secretary said in terms of the current consultation on the NIF measures, local authorities use some of those measures and some of their own measures as well, and we are particularly keen to look at the local government benchmarking tool as well to ensure that there is much consistency in the measures that we are all using in terms of talking about improvement. Those 11 core measures were developed after consultation, including with local government partners, to get that broad and balanced account of children's progress and development in terms of closing the gap. I think that I would quite welcome this committee's obviously reporting, but this committee has taken a view on how clear and readable that dashboard is, and maybe that is something that we will look at with Inboard report and the board term. We met some teachers at Rock secondary school for the west hub. They were telling us that they were concerned that the impact of Covid would see some slippage back on progress made by young people, which was their primary concern. However, there is a secondary concern that it would also negate a lot of the good work that had been taking place during Covid and before, and that that might not be recognised because of that. I ask the cabinet secretary whether there is an impact statement likely to follow every annual reporting process. For example, the impact statement could deal with the impact of Covid on how progress has been made and how other external measures are the poverty-related attainment gap, so the impact of the £20 cut in universal credit, the impact on the UK cost of living crisis, or a more positive note, the impact of the Scottish child payment, because there is massive moneys at play not just within education, but within wider public expenditure at a Scottish and UK level, which will impact on the poverty-related attainment gap. Cabinet secretary, will there be an impact statement when we look at future evaluations? When it comes to the impact of Covid, I would point Bob Doris to two aspects. One is the equity audit that took place some time ago, which looked at the impact of Covid and reported back on the impact of it. The most recent ASL statistics came out, which saw a dip in attainment and it is very difficult to draw a direct correlation between one thing happening and an impact on attainment, but I do not think that it would be stretching the bounds too much to say that clearly the impact on attainment that has been had over the past couple of years has been because of the impact of Covid. That was clearly shown in the equity audit. The context in which Mr Doris points to is exceptionally important and will be taken account of as Education Scotland works with local authorities on the stretch aims. Clearly, the context of every local authority will be taken account of. We will always ensure, as we are developing our policies, that we analyse the impact of those policies once we evaluate them. Again, it is very difficult to point to one policy having a direct correlation to changes in outcomes. What is clear, for example, is that the more we can do to tackle child poverty, the more we will to help families in their overall circumstances that will help with attainment. Likewise, if there are decisions taken elsewhere, and Mr Doris points to the £20 cut in universal credit, then clearly those will have negative experiences for families that inevitably will have impacts on how families can cope. We will very much endeavour to look at the impact of different policies as we move forward and to take account of those and understand that context once the stretch aims are being developed by local authorities. In convener, perhaps the cabinet secretary could write to the committee because of typing students with my questioning this morning in relation to the positive destination data, which is quite exceptional this year. Again, please don't record the efforts of teachers and students to get us to that stage. We are all interested to know, as the committee, what happens to those young people one year out, two years out, three years out. It is lifelong learning in closing the attainment gap and making sure that there is a positive impact on life chances. A bit more information in relation to how the Scottish Government and its agencies tracks the journeys of young people once they have left school in a meaningful way where we can continue to track that data over a longer period of time would be very helpful. Could the cabinet secretary or one of our officials be able to deal with that correspondence with the committee? Yes, they are nodding their heads. That is good. Thank you, Bob Doris. Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary. I wondered if you agree that high quality teaching and learning remains the best way to close the attainment gap. Well, it is one of the best ways to close the attainment gap. Tackling poverty is the other aspect, which is recognised in the refreshed mission that we have. Yes, teaching and learning, but the reason why we have adapted the mission is to recognise the impact of societal poverty overall. You would recognise that, without that core teaching and learning, you can put as many other things in place, but those young people are still likely to struggle when it comes to the more formal part of learning around literacy and numeracy and some of those metrics that the committee has been looking at, without that good teaching. We are not going to see improvement in those areas, are we? Well, absolutely, yes. The teaching is an integral part of that. So do you think that we have got the focus and the balance right so far? Well, one of the areas that we are very keen to look at in the refreshed challenge is the wider impact of poverty, but the aspects around teaching and learning are one of the very key lessons that we learned from the first iteration of the funding, and we have very much held dear to over this. It is around the PEF funding going directly towards schools and an empowered system, and we have been able to determine for schools to be able to determine how that £520 million within the refreshed package will be felt. That is because we place a very important place within our system on teachers and their role within it. You would completely reject the idea that a lot of this money has been wasted at a time when teacher numbers had been cut, when support staff had been cut, when there was a failure to reduce class sizes. There are issues recruiting teachers in some subject areas and in some parts of the country. In light of the fact that we still struggle to make teaching an attractive profession as seen by on-going paying conditions, you do not think that there is a sense in which we have spent additional money on things that are good, yes, but we have failed when it comes to securing the fundamentals of the system. I think that what we have seen within the Scottish attainment challenge and with PEF funding in particular is schools putting in a range of progress that they have determined being directly involved with the young people. What is the most important thing that will make an impact on child's health and wellbeing, which will obviously therefore set that child up within tackling any attainment challenges that we may have? Most teachers say that teaching and learning is the core part of their job and, yes, they are concerned about children's welfare and they see that as being really important, but they feel that they have been asked to do too much and that, by not focusing on the area where they can make a difference in the classroom, they feel that we are seeing slow progress on literacy, numeracy and on the core vital components for later education. I would reflect on a conference that I was at only last week when I was asked by a teacher in the Q&A about the importance of looking at a whole child approach and the fact that it is impossible and nor should we attempt to look at education somehow just looking at attainment and not looking at children's health and wellbeing. I think that it is very important and indeed the feedback that I was receiving from teachers just last week was the importance of ensuring that we were looking at health and wellbeing and we were looking at other aspects. However, I would, of course, point to the fact that we have more teachers now than at any time since 2008. The ratio of pupils to teachers is at its lowest since 2009. There are over 2,000 more teachers in Scotland schools than before the start of the pandemic and, of course, we have additional commitments over this parliamentary term, so that shows that we are both investing in teacher numbers, but I do not think that it is contradictory or in any way takes away from that to say that we should also look at a headteacher in conjunction with parents, with teachers, looking at how PEF should be spent to be able to support that young people. That is a very clear part of the system. I was also at a teaching conference last week, the SSTA conference, which I know that there was no political representation from the Scottish Government at, and certainly the message there was that teachers feel undervalued, underpaid, under-supported, that our schools are under-resourced and that it is starting to have an impact on young people, but, again, like other committee members, I do not think that we are going to agree. I will ask a specific question on PEF funding. Obviously, there has been a switch elsewhere with entertainment funding to low-income families. Did you look at making that change in relation to PEF funding, and did you do any modelling on what that would look like in terms of the distribution of funds? The aspect around PEF, as I am aware by your questioning, is that you are aware that the decision has been taken to remain with the free school meals measurement for that. One of the reasons that I was keen to see that— Did you model what an alternative would look like based on low-income families? Well, I explained the reason why I took the decision to keep it within the free school meals was to ensure that there was a continuity within PEF from what schools had had previously to before. The decision was taken very early on by myself to ensure that we were keeping that continuity within the system. Obviously, there will have been discussions and consultations about the Scottish attainment challenge in general before I came to that decision. I am not aware of any modelling taking place within that, but clearly there were a number of discussions with stakeholders and groups that were set up specifically to look at the refresh, where discussions will have been had on those areas. I think that continuity was an important part of PEF that I was keen to continue. It was worthwhile that the disruption that Mr Marra talked about in relation to other attainment funding was worth the disruption in terms of teacher post-schooling and support post-schooling with that funding, but it was not worth looking at it when it came to PEF. PEF already goes to 97 per cent of schools, and it is important that we recognise— That is not necessarily fairly allocated in terms of where the poverty exists, if you are using a measure that is potentially flawed, is it? I appreciate that there are different measures that we could use. I have explained the reason why we have taken the decision to stay with that within PEF, and I have also explained the reason why I took the decision to change other parts of the system. That was in the recognition that poverty exists right across Scotland, and the fact that we are doing so, not using SIMD or not using a bid process, which is what happened before, allowed us to look at children and low-income families that would help right across Scotland, including in rural areas. It is all a little bit inconsistent, but that is probably something to look at further, as the committee thinks about the evidence that we have heard. The final thing that I wanted to ask while looking at attainment was to highlight a challenge that I have become aware of, impacting a small number of Ukrainian young people who have settled in Scotland. There are a number of pupils who have joined too late in the school year to gain qualifications here in Scotland, and, understandably, they are struggling to complete assessments for courses that they started in Ukraine. I just wanted to seek your assurance that this is something that the Scottish Government would look at and work in partnership with local authorities to make sure that those young people are not further disadvantaged and that their future attainment is not affected. I would be very happy to either meet or Lord Wendell to send me the further details of the constituents that he has in mind to be able to discuss this. Clearly, the Scottish Government is putting in support to assist with Ukrainian children and young people who come. It will be a difficult time of year to enter the education system, and that will understandably impact on what can be done within this academic year. There is a great deal of work going on between local authorities and individual schools about how to support particular families, because every circumstance will be different. However, if there is a role that I can play in smoothing any of that over, or that Education Scotland can play in that, we are very pleased to be able to do that. Clearly, for example, Education Scotland has put in national resources to assist with Ukrainian students and families who are coming over and who are moving into the system. There is a lot more just within a discussion about what we are doing with an education to support Ukrainian nationals, but, with the content of time, I am happy to take that offline and to be able to deal with that. It is brief. I will reflect on Mr Wendell's questions about the design of the policy. We put some questions to Education Scotland last week, and I asked them whether they had raised any concerns about the impact on existing challenge authorities and the new formulation on how that was designed. They said no, they had not raised any of those concerns, and I asked did anyone else raise any of those concerns, and they said not particularly. Do you recall those around the methodology to sign? Were those things talked through? Did you raise those concerns? Clearly, there was a discussion right initially about how we could have a fair funding settlement. What was discussed with stakeholders was what that fair funding settlement would look like right across Scotland. Again, some of the evidence that you have already had, as a committee from one of the education directors—I think that it was again from Inverclyde—talked about whether, of course, she would prefer to keep all the money, but she recognised that a fair funding settlement was required. We discussed the impact of that, as committee would expect. That was one of the reasons why I made sure that there was a taper in place to allow changes in funding to be done not over one year, but over four. I am one of the majority of MSPs in this Parliament who would welcome the funding that is going to the 23 other local authorities and reaching the 59 per cent of youngsters who weren't previously being captured by that approach. However, what I am keen to get from me today is an assurance of how the money will be accompanied by access to the gathered knowledge that we now have about what works. I was very struck by the sessions that we had with teaching staff from the west of Scotland, and I have to say that I found them incredibly positive about the work that is being done. However, most of that knowledge has been amassed in the west of Scotland. I know that we have the regional collaboratives for sharing best practice. I just want to give a bit of assurance about how that best practice, that green knowledge, is going to be available to the other local authorities who have not had that opportunity up to now, other than through the individual schools and the PEF funding, so that we are not reinventing the wheel so that they can capitalise on the best practice that we know that works. I guess that within that is the question about the role of Education Scotland and all of that. There was a publication by Education Scotland that was published around the same time as we launched the refreshed. Forgive me, I cannot remember the name of the publication, but the point of the publication was to look at lessons learned, good practice, et cetera. Obviously, within Education Scotland as well, national hub looks at, again, good practice in discussions. You point to the west of Scotland, RICS is covered by a RIC. It is a very important area around collaboration. It is perhaps a part of the system that does not get much discussion. It is understandably perhaps more national government and its agencies and local government, but the RICS is a very important part of that information sharing and collaborative working. That was absolutely the intent behind the RICS when it was established. As well as the work that I have mentioned from Education Scotland, we have the attainment advisers that are there to advise. There are 32 for each local authority, but they are aware of what is happening right across Scotland and can relate some of that and the events that go on. I would point also to some of the points that I made earlier around the support that Education Scotland can provide that is for every single local authority, or, indeed, directly to a school, which can take that knowledge that has been gathered and be able to disseminate that for headteachers. However, I think that what we have been good to see is that, in part, because of the work of the RICS and of Education Scotland, we are seeing headteachers say that they feel confident and in a place to be able to implement policies using PEF that they feel will make a difference, so they are aware of the policies and that they feel confident that they can take those forward. I mentioned that in my introductory remarks, so I will not go through the specific stats of that. The final part of that work in collaboration that is being done is work with Education Scotland and different local authorities on collaborative improvement. There have been a number of local authorities that have been through that process. Every local authority will go through it. It is work that has been done very closely in conjunction with ADES to make sure that there is that continuous improvement in learning. I am interested in the potential for some longitude no study work on the impact of funding so far. It was Jim Thullis from School Leader Scotland who first made the point to us that we are now at the stage of potentially having an entire cohort having gone through either the whole of primary or secondary education while those funds are in place and that this is an appropriate time to commission some long-term longitude no evaluation of the impact that the funding has had overall. Is there anything already under way or any work that is likely to take place over the coming months that would fit that description of a longitude no evaluation of the overall impact that the funding has had in specific settings? There is not the longitude no work that I think Jim Thullis was referring to when I looked at the evidence that he gave. Clearly there is a lot of evaluation work that has been undertaken and we are in the process of finalising the evaluation work for the refreshed SAC. It is an interesting proposal that has come up. I am happy to give it further consideration and perhaps hear directly from Jim Thullis of course he can feed in on this and about the importance. One of the aspects that I am keen to make sure is that we gather a lot of data on education within Scotland. There is data that is gathered by local authorities, that is data that is gathered as part of the NIF and would this be a worthwhile exercise and the query obviously within that is what impact it would have on teachers' workload etc. We would clearly have to look at all those caveats about it as well but it is something that I am happy to go away and have further discussions on and see if there is a role for that and in due course I will take a decision on it. That is really good to hear. The last part of your answer probably points towards what the answer to this next question will be but if such a piece of work was to be undertaken where would responsibility for that SAC be with Education Scotland? Would it be for Graham and the directorate? I am interested in the accountability around evaluation of the scheme overall but if something specific like a bit of longitudinal evaluation work were to be done where would that best sit? I think I would have to look at what we would want to achieve from that and then that determination can take place and clearly there will be views about where that would best sit from stakeholders that I would listen to if we were going to take that forward. Clearly the responsibility for the evaluation sits overall with the Scottish Government but Education Scotland does play a very important role and will continue to play a very important role in the evaluation of that over the coming year. In terms of Education Scotland's role, how much of that is about ensuring that ricks and local authorities are evaluating and feeding back up versus doing their own direct evaluation? We were keen to ensure, as we went through the refresh and particularly with the introduction of stretch aims, that we were not asking local authorities or schools to carry out work that they were not already doing because what we did not want to do was put an additional burden into the system. The way that the refresh has worked has been very much in collaboration with the Scottish Government. A determination about what could be involved in the stretch aims will involve things that are already part of a school improvement plan or local authorities work. That was very important to me as we looked at this as we did not put further pressure on the system at any time but particularly at this time. I think that that is very important for national accountability but I hope that there will also be an ability to have that local accountability for the stretch aims and for what happens, as does happen within a local authority discussion at any time, whether that is through the committee or through elections or whatever. That importance of having that accountability at different levels is very important but at a national level it sits with me. Just one final question on encouraging that local accountability. Obviously it is not for the Scottish Government to tell local elected members what they should have on their own agenda but how do you strike that balance between giving local authorities the autonomy that they deserve as elected bodies whilst trying to encourage and support them to do that kind of local evaluation work that can collectively feed up and build that national picture? I think that there is an aspect that I have been hurt by in this position. I think that there is an overall acceptance of the need to ensure excellence and equity in education. I do not think that that is a national government thing. I think that that is accepted by local government. One of the areas where we need to continue to look both at national and local government is what we can do in our different areas to actually see progress. There will be some aspects that national government should be quite rightly challenged on. There are some aspects that quite rightly also sit within a local government focus about what they should be challenged on about doing more off. One of the aspects that we have touched on today, for example, is around variation, variation within a local authority, variation across local authorities. The data that we have suggests that variation is marked. If we can tackle that variation, it is again another lens to look at the poverty-related attainment gap, because it cannot all be explained by different poverty levels in different parts of Scotland. I also think that there is a real desire and determination within local government to tackle the poverty-related attainment gap. That is a shared endeavour between national and local governments. Of course, there will be something in which I will be keen to meet my COSLA counterpart when they are elected to their position to be able to carry forward that discussion about how we can take that forward within our different responsibilities. Just to clarify, where does responsibility for trying to reduce variation lie nationally? Is it directly with Government or is Education Scotland to take a lead on that? Education Scotland is an agency of government. Therefore, the responsibility lies absolutely with me as the Cabinet Secretary. Education Scotland plays a very important role in the refreshed attainment challenge funding around the support that is there, but also around the challenge where it is necessary. I am keen to have a collaborative approach, but there needs to be a little bit of a grit in the system if, for example, the work that Education Scotland has done with the local authority is not then delivering the types of progress that one might expect to see, and that is then a very much a responsibility of the local government to be able to discuss with that. However, it is a collaborative approach. That grit needs to be in the system, but it is there only if that collaboration has not produced the changes that we would all like to see at the pace that we would like to see them. Thank you. That is all from me, convener. Thank you, convener, and welcome, Cabinet Secretary. Sorry, a bit of a call today. Just going back a little bit, we have already spoken a bit about Ruth Bink's comments from Enver Clyde about challenge authorities being pathfinders and the fact that the workforce has really skilled up and their ability to manage peff money grown year on year. We also found in our evidence as well that teachers were talking about being able to reach into families and understand them better and understand the impacts of poverty. Also that the teachers can independently reach a similar understanding of what was actually working well for families and what had the most impact there. My question to you is, would you consider that the pathfinder funding approach was really successful and what was it that worked particularly well and were there particular challenges? A kind of add-on question, as we had Mr Marra commenting about cuts quite a lot, which, if you are looking at it from the pathfinder approach, is not really what was going on there, but I am wondering as well that he mentioned personal conversations that he has had, although that was not committee evidence there. Was it really clear enough from the outset that it was that kind of pathfinder approach or was that perhaps a learning point as well? I think probably the easiest way to probably direct committee is actually back to the evidence that we have already had from the directors of education, Ruth Binks in particular, where she did very much talk about. We were very much told that they were pathfinders looking at how to make things work. Clearly, there is always a wish for funding to continue over a number of years, but I think that that was clear. That is one of the areas where the pathfinders have been very successful is to try out different models to ensure that they are looking at what works in their system and for that learning to not only be within their own local authority, but be learnt by others. Probably the easiest way to answer that is to point back to the evidence that was given by the director of education from Inverclyde when she was at committee. How will multi-year funding support better planning? The lessons that came across loud and clear, and it is not just in this part of the Government but in different parts of the Government, is a wish for longer-term guarantees around funding to allow better longer-term planning. That was something that came across understandably very much particularly from headteachers when they were wanting to plan out the PEF funding, part of the Scottish attainment challenge funding. I was very cognisant of that, and we were very pleased to be able to deliver it and that it will allow schools and local authorities to be able to do more long-term planning and to ensure that there is a bit more continuity, for example in the staff that are there for young people. Just a final question, convener. I think that Mr Dain made really important points as well around that collaborative working that has developed that is really flourished, I suppose, as far as Ricks at a national level school and local level goes. Going back as well in looking at families themselves, they really seem to have had quite a bit of input and worked quite closely with teachers, etc. There, too. And how can we make sure that we are continuing to have those families influencing policy and decision making not just at that local level but also at the national level, too? How is the intent doing that? So, obviously, at a national or at a local level, indeed, at an individual school level, there is the school improvement plan work and parents, and indeed young people, should play an important part of that. We shouldn't forget the importance of listening to young people as part of that work as well. Within a national setting, we are very keen right across education to ensure that the voice of parents comes through in different parts of policy. So, clearly, we have connections either at official level or, indeed, at a ministerial level with parents groups and hear directly from them or they play an important part in, for example, the Scottish Education Council to ensure that they are involved in that part as well. So, I think that it is very important that, although teachers know the young people best, we should have an empowered system. Obviously, part of that ahead teacher's work is to take account of the views of parents as they deliver school improvement work, and I think that that is to the benefit of everyone. Thank you, Stephanie Callaghan. Cabinet Secretary, thank you for the time that you have given us this morning. As the convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, I would have you hear more frequently because I always enjoy your appearances before committee. I am very pleased to hear that you enjoy them as well. However, if, as is likely, we see you at least six months from now, how should we judge your performance as Cabinet Secretary in relation to this subject, the topic of our inquiry? Give me in the committee two or three things on your list of objectives that we can measure you against six months from now. Well, I think that six months from now we will have a fully refreshed system, we will have the stretch aims in place, we will be able to have a discussion at that point, not in the abstract but around those stretch aims, so I'll perhaps just make it easier and point it to that one, convener. Okay, that's fair enough. On that basis, I'll accept your list and we'll look through revisiting that in due course. I thank you again not only to you, Cabinet Secretary, but also to Graham Logan and Alison Taylor for joining us this morning in committee. We wish you a very good day and we will suspend now for five minutes to allow for a change of witnesses. Thank you. Welcome back. The next item on our agenda is an evidence session on the cross-border placements effect of deprivation of liberty orders Scotland regulations 2022. This morning, we'll take evidence from officials from the Children and Young People's Commissioner's Office. I'd like to welcome Nick Hobbs, head of advice and investigations, and Maria Galley, legal officer, Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland. Good morning to both of you. The measure that we are considering is described by the Scottish Government, thus the current progress of placing authorities petitioning the court of session to recognise DOL orders cannot be sustained. It doesn't serve the interests of the child or young person at the heart of each application and it places a burden on local authorities and on the court itself when resources could be directed elsewhere. However, you don't support this measure. Will you tell us why? I think that it's probably important to start, convener, by recognising that the problem that the regulations that are directed at solving is that we recognise not of the Scottish Government's creation. We are sympathetic to the complexity of the issue that they are trying to address here and we have seen that ourselves through intervention in a number of the cases that have come before the court of session and indeed the UK Supreme Court on these cross-border placements and on the use of the inherent jurisdiction to deprive children of their liberty. However, the complexity of this issue is why it is so important that we get this right and get it right the first time. Our view is that what we need here is a coherent package of regulations that may span a number of different areas of law, including children's hearings, mental health and education, in order to ensure that those placements are only made in exceptional circumstances, that they are made where they are in the best interests of the child, that they are temporary in nature and that they provide a clear parity of legal protection around the deprivation of liberty itself but also around children's rights to health and education in terms of domestic law. Our concern is that the regulations are insufficient at the moment in terms of how they are currently drafted to provide that certainty. You are looking for a more permanent solution. Is that right? We are looking for the regulations to be significantly strengthened and you will see that in the appendix of the evidence that we provided to the committee that we have set out and the reason for which that could be achieved. The Government is saying that this measure is a temporary measure to meet the objectives that I just read to you. Is that not reasonable? It is absolutely reasonable to try and put in place something temporary with a view towards the Care and Justice Bill addressing it on a permanent footing, but the Care and Justice Bill in terms of implementation is a couple of years away. While that is a temporary fix, it is a fairly long-term temporary fix and it needs to be robust. It needs to be compliant with Scotland's obligations in terms of the ECHR, the UNCRC and other international law. This package of regulations needs to be significantly strengthened in order to achieve that objective. You do not mind starting with the DAF question because I am certainly not a lawyer. One of your recommendations is that the High Court should only be able to make these orders for a maximum of 22 days and then a couple of subsequent, potential three-month extensions. That is not directly relevant to those regulations, though. Is that either for the bill or more directly for the UK Government and UK-wide legislation? You can ensure that those orders can only be made for a shorter period of time through regulations. You are right that a number of the issues that are about the direct control of the Scottish Government and one of the things that we need to see from the Government is some assurance from UK ministers that they are doing something to resolve the root of this, which is the lack of appropriate secure provision for children in England and Wales. However, we can provide significant additional protections for children's rights around the length of time for which an initial order can be made law in Scotland, around the units that can accept a placement, around the undertaking that can be provided by the English local authority. Does the Government have some levers that it can pull to significantly strengthen the protections in Scotland? I recognise there are certainly ways that the regulations can be strengthened. It is just that particular one around restricting the high courts ability in terms of the length of the orders. It seems really questionable that we would be able to do that through regulation in Scotland. At the very least, any English local authority seeking to challenge that would have, I presume, a pretty strong case, given that it is not in primary legislation in Scotland and that it is not relevant to the UK-wide legislation or the English legislation specifically that this has taken place in. However, you mentioned a couple of other concerns that I am interested in getting into in a bit more detail. One of them that seems very reasonable is that by the regulations, the care inspectorate is not obliged to inspect facilities. There is an obligation to notify them, but they are not obliged to take any particular action. Given that this is a temporary solution, would you be satisfied if the care inspectorate simply made a commitment to do so? Even if it is not necessarily required by regulation, given that what we are talking about here is hopefully only going to be in place for two years. If the care inspectorate simply made a commitment to inspect these facilities, would that satisfy you in terms of that specific concern? It is about two things. The first is about the distinction between a policy commitment and legal duties and obligations in terms of the ability to hold units and placing public authorities and Scottish public authorities accountable against particular legal duties. However, it is also about how effective that will be in terms of securing the rights protections for children that we think are necessary. We do not just think that it is not just about the inspection itself, it is about the standards against which those units are inspected and trying to provide that parity of legal protection that you would get if you were a Scottish child placed in a secure unit. We are looking at the secure care standards and looking at some of the additional requirements that are in place for Scottish units that are authorised to deprive children of their liberty and trying to provide that parity. Broadly, I think that the concern is about trying to make sure that as much of that is placed in statute as possible. There is a care inspectorate report published this morning at 10 o'clock, so I appreciate that committee members will not have seen it yet. However, it very helpfully lays out a number of concerns about the care inspectorate's own powers and about the issues that they have brought forward from consultation and a survey with their inspectors in terms of what they have seen already and the ability of the inspectorate and other agencies to hold providers accountable. Our view is that, wherever possible, that needs to be in terms of a statutory duty of a requirement, because that is what gives children the best level of protection. I think that the concerns that I am sure in that care inspectorate report are certainly widespread. I am certainly not disagreeing with you in principle. What I am trying to figure out here is whether we are in danger of lighting the perfect enemy of the good, particularly given that that is a temporary measure. There are just a couple more specific points that he raised that I am interested in getting a little bit of clarity on. You mentioned that there is a linear briefing here. There is a real risk that, without sufficient legal restrictions, Scotland is opening the door to significant numbers of cross-border placements and to the possibility that that will be exploited by private profit-making providers. My understanding is that that is exactly what is happening at the moment, and those regulations do not go far enough. I think that the Scottish Government itself would admit that, and that is why there are those proposals out for consultation at the moment in terms of the children's justice bill. Surely what is proposed in those regulations would not incentivise further use of cross-border placements. It might not reduce it by as much as we want, but it would reduce it. For example, I recognise that you have some specific concerns with that point, but the regulations give the Scottish Government the ability through the sheriff court to take action against the placing authority. To me, that would be a disincentive. If I was an English local authority seeking to place a young person with a private provider who was based in Scotland, the potential for the Scottish Government to pursue me through the sheriff court would be a disincentive rather than an incentive. Do you recognise that the regulations may not go far enough, but they do not incentivise further cross-border placements in Scotland? They do disincentivise them. On your first points, you talked about the perfect being the enemy of the good. We absolutely agree with that. The concern is that we cannot apply the appellation goods to the regulations. They are not good enough at present, so we are not looking to create some sort of utopian legal position. We are looking to try and make sure that the regulations do the minimum necessary to discharge Scotland's obligations in terms of international law. On your second question, I will let Maria answer that in terms of the legal element of it. I think that what I would say is that there are real questions about how that would work legally and how effective it would be. One of the main issues that we have a concern about is children's access to justice and children's rights to effective remedy to challenge those decisions, to challenge what is happening to them in being removed from their families and placed many hundreds of miles away often in an entirely different system and then being deprived of their liberty and all of the rights restrictions that happen around there. There is nothing within those regulations that we consider would be good enough to allow those children to challenge that. So, immaterial, whether or not the Scottish ministers would be seeking to uphold the commitment made by the placing authority from England, I think that there is a real difficulty in terms of rule of law, in terms of the Scottish ministers taking public authorities in England to court, and we might then enter into a little bit of a debate around constitutional law, around that particular remedy, but it is the absolute absence of the child's voice in any of this that is of most significant concern. So, I think that a lot more has to be done. They are not good enough, as Nick said. They absolutely, the minimum standards need to be achieved. Scotland has incorporated the UNCRC. We should be at least going to the maximalist approach that we can take in terms of rights protections within those regulations. We should not be making new law that allows children's rights to suffer in this way. That is our principal argument against the regulations as they stand. There have been many concerns expressed across the legal profession around particular issues such as remedies and so on. The Supreme Court raised a really interesting and important point. The reason why those placements are inadequate, the reason why those placements are happening and children are being exported out of England into Scotland, not through our system. There is a mechanism. They could do it through our system, but they choose not to do it and they choose to do it through this inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. That is because of the lack of placements in England. Lack of suitable placements, Scotland will be able to provide a better care service for English children, but it must be the same better care service that our own Scottish children are entitled to. There must be parity and those regulations and this process and this procedure of what has been happening for two and a half years does not give any parity or consistency at all for those children from England. They are discriminating against the English children, so we need to see a much more robust understanding of the child being involved in the decision making processes. The cases that we are aware of that have gone to the Court of Session to have the authorisation from the English High Court, those cases and many cases have not been taken to the Court of Session, so the regulations in that sense would prevent an incentive to, if you want, to this placement to continue. Remember that many of the children are placed there before any legal actions taken without any planning. Many of them are placed on an emergency basis. The difficulty with the Court of Session cases, as we have seen, is that there have been no children represented since the initial case. None of the children are represented in the court. The court does not hear the voice of the child. That cannot be right when we are incorporating the UNCRC into Scottish law. I think that that right to an effective remedy and participation is probably fundamental to this. I have huge sympathy with so much of what you are saying. I am just trying to drill down and identify exactly each point of specific concern. I am writing an understanding from what you have said that you do not believe that those regulations would provide further incentive. Part of the question here—not all of it—is whether we will end up in a place where, for the next two and a half years, we will continue to see a significant increase in the number of placements. Do you believe that the regulations make it more likely that we will continue to see that increase? That is the bit that I am struggling with here, particularly given that it is questionable and will end up in a question of constitutional law, but particularly given the provision that is here allowing the Scottish Government to pursue the policing authority. To me, that is a pretty clear disincentive, if I was an English local authority, to try for a placement that was in Scotland. I am still trying to understand why you think that this process incentivises placement in Scotland. There are two elements to that. The first one is that if you think about what the current process is, you have to make an application to the Court of Session, so you have to instruct counsel, you have to find Scottish solicitors. There is significant expense and legal complexity involved in that process. If we create a route whereby those orders are effectively automatically recognised, automatically transferred from an English order into a Scottish order, that is much simpler and much more straightforward. The question about whether the role of Scottish ministers provides a disincentive approach comes to that question about how effective are the regulations in providing a route through which English local authorities could be held to account against their legal duties. We have got the undertaking in there, but the undertaking is drafted pretty vaguely. You will have seen that we have made a number of suggestions as to how that might be strengthened. As Maria pointed out, it removes the right of access to remedy and redress from the child, which is where it should be, because the child is the one who knows best whether their rights are being respected, whether their needs are being met and vests with Scottish ministers. There are real questions of practicality about how a Scottish minister is going to become aware of a child whose rights are not being respected in this place. How is a child expected to communicate that with the best of intentions, a faceless group of individuals in Victoria Key? How is the Government going to assess whether those needs have been met? That is before you are even into the question about, in practical terms, what order a sheriff court could make against an English local authority, and that gets into the constitutional bit that Maria has talked about. In practice, that probably goes to the number of one of the major concerns that we have about those regulations, and we talk about it in our paper, is that they provide what appears to be significant rights protections. Once you drill down to it, once you start to ask the questions about, in practical terms, how is this going to work, you are left with a lot more questions than answers, and that protection can appear quite illusory. I think that that is the case in this instance. I guess that my question is about the interaction and relationship between the officer of the commissioner and the Scottish Government. Listening to this today, there seems to be quite a lot of blue water between your position and that of the Government. Is there been any dialogue at all, any discussion, while those regulations were being put together between the officer of the commissioner and the Scottish Government? Yes. We have engaged extensively with the Scottish Government right the way through this process. Going back to the very first case that we became aware of some three and a bit years ago, we have been talking to both policy and legal officials about their consultation process and, most recently, last week, about those regulations themselves. We have had a detailed conversation with officials about the amendments that we have proposed and the request that we have for the minister to withdraw all those regulations to reconsider them, to strengthen them and to bring them back to the Parliament so that they provide the robust and effective children's rights-respecting solution that we all agree is necessary. You talked about blue water, but in terms of policy terms and policy intents, in terms of the principles that we want to see applied here, we are absolutely in alignment with Government. The difference between us at the moment is about what is necessary in order to achieve that policy intent. To be clear, the conversation about those proposals only took place last week after they had become public. Well, we could only have a conversation about the regulations once the regulations were public, because we did not know what they looked like. That is my point. You were not having a dialogue before that about what would look like progress in this area? Only in terms of the consultation, which was obviously set at a level above the detailed regulations. One final question, my mate. You talked there about the opportunity for the child to challenge, but surely that challenge would lie with the place in authority. The challenge ought to be between the child and their representatives and the place in authority. It would not lie in Scotland, would it? That is one of the questions that the regulations and the issue really raise. Is that really complex interaction between two legal jurisdictions? The child is placed by the English local authority, and the English local authority retains all of its responsibilities and duties to meet that child's needs. The regulations would be to pay for the services that the child requires, but that is without prejudice to the existing Scots law duties that public authorities, local authorities, health boards, etc., have to a child in their area. The requirement to conduct a child in need assessment in terms of the Children's Scotland Act would still apply to the Scottish local authority. You get into issues about additional support needs, about mental health. It is a really challenging and complex area. There might well be a situation where what the child wants to challenge is the failure of a Scottish public body to respect their rights in terms of Scots law. Or indeed, they might need advice on their rights in terms of Scots law because that is not being respected by the English local authority. We can maybe talk a little bit about additional support needs, because I think that that is the area in which, within education, that is thrown into sharpest relief. I will ask Maria to touch on that. Yes, absolutely. All of the children that we are aware of are all autistic. All of the children are teenagers. They have complex experiences of trauma and adversity in their childhoods. Those are children that we are very well aware of. They are peers in counterparts in Scotland, and all of them, as far as we have seen, are not having their education needs met, and they are not having additional support for learning needs met in terms of the obligations of the state in Scotland. That is hugely concerning, because if they do not have a co-ordinated support plan, if they do not have a needs assessment to identify exactly who they are and where they are from, if they do not have mental health assessments, if they do not have access to mental health services here, and if the services all align in terms of the Scottish framework for decision making and assessment, which is laudable in Scotland around getting it right for every child framework, the national practice model allows that to happen in Scotland for every Scottish child. That is not happening for those children, so they are really falling between the cracks in terms of access to services having their needs met. You do not believe that the element of an advocacy services would be a step forward? Yes, absolutely. Sorry, Nick. Advocacy is certainly welcome. There is no dispute or no disagreement about the value that a good advocate can bring to a child and having a Scottish advocate in addition to their legal rights when English advocate is not a concern for us. The issue is that advocates are not legal representatives. Advocates' role is to help the child speak, but the advocate may not have the detailed legal knowledge to let the child know what their rights are and how to secure remedy or redress when those rights are being violated. I can understand—this has been really helpful, by the way. I understand that there is equality between English children here and Scottish children here. Is there something particular about the equality between English children here and English children in England? You say that those proposals are not compatible with the UNCRC or the ECHR. Is that the case in England as well? Probably. It is not our place to comment on English law and its compatibility. I think that what we can stress and emphasise is the significant absence of available, suitable rights respecting accommodation in England for these children with the highest and most complex needs. That gap, the missing link in the chain of rights protections for children in England is what is causing this situation in Scotland. As far as we can comment on the English provisions, whether they are compatible, those provisions are certainly not compatible. In many cases, not as our existing system, the children in secure could argue that some of their rights are not being met. However, if you do a comparison between a child who is in secure accommodation in Scotland and who is in these privately run children's houses in Scotland and is being deprived of their liberty, if you do a comparison, there is the blue water that exists between it. It is absolutely significant. What we want to see is that any regulations that are to fix this gap will provide those necessary safeguards for the English children on the same level as the Scottish children. All the work has been done in Scotland. Scotland is there in terms of a rights respecting approach that has been fostered and promoted by children and young people. The independent care review and the promise is being implemented in Scotland. We want to see the same thing happening for English children if they come here. Just going back though, are English children who are here worse off than English children in English facilities? It would probably be a case by case basis that you would have to draw those comparisons. For example, it might be in a child's best interest to come here to Scotland and to be deprived of their liberty to receive those intensive supports, but we cannot take a blanket approach. It has to be on an individual child basis to meet their individual needs. Are you optimistic that the Government will come to an agreement with you on the best way forward? It very much depends on the view that the committee takes today. We look forward to hearing the minister's evidence next week, and I am sure that we will have further conversations with officials on this after our evidence session. The Supreme Court ruled that the deprivation of liberty was in line with human rights, did it not? The Supreme Court in particular case, so that was the T case, which was the kind of seminal case from last year. What the Supreme Court was looking at there was because of the absence of suitable provision. In terms of policy, the Supreme Court criticised the fact that there was an absence of provision and essentially reluctantly agreed that children could be placed in alternative provision that was unregistered, that was in secure accommodation in England. Bearing in mind that secure accommodation in England is an entirely different enterprise and facility than secure accommodation in Scotland, but sometimes people think that they are the same thing—they are not. Because of the significant and horrendous absence of suitable placements, the Supreme Court said that that has to be fixed politically, we have to see resources increased, we have to see greater protections for children's rights in England, but in the meantime, in emergency situations in which children are absolutely at crisis point, life-threatening crisis point, places to keep them safe can be authorised. However, as I say, it was very reluctantly that we did that. They did not address the question of cross-border placements. Ruth Maguire Colleagues have probably covered the areas that I was thinking about. I wanted to ask about the policy intention of the advocacy. I am feeling a little bit confused in terms of care about all children in all countries. I will say that at the outset. It is a bit about how we influence what is happening in England if the standards are not being met there. With the best will in the world, if we do not make the changes, it does not stop the children being placed. The changes that are being proposed have the addition of the advocate in there, so that the child's rights are better supported and their voice can be heard. I think that this might be a silly question, but I will ask it because it feels important. How do we change the practice in England that you are saying does not seem to be rights-based? Can you just lay that out for me so that I can understand that? Yes, absolutely. You are absolutely right that there is limited ability for the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament to impact on practice or law in England through regulations made and laid before this Parliament. The ways in which you can do that, though, provide for a mechanism through which an English order is allowed lawfully to be transferred into a Scottish order. You can place restrictions around the circumstances in which that can happen, and particularly around, for example, a restriction around a Scottish residential unit being prevented from accepting a placement, except in where certain criteria are met. That is what we have tried to do with the amendments that we are suggesting, is absolutely to recognise that kind of tension and that challenge, but to find ways that are within the competence of the Government and the Parliament to provide some safeguards around this. The restriction on which unit can accept a placement is strengthening the undertaking that the English local authority provides, providing access to legal representation in Scotland. All of those things go towards within the powers that the Parliament has providing additional human rights protections in terms of that. The Parliament cannot require the UK Government to produce more secure units. It cannot place direct obligations on the High Court to behave in particular ways, but we can restrict the route through which those orders are translated into Scotland in a way that provides additional rights protections for the children who are coming here. What would that mean for a child in England? It would mean, for instance, that we in Scotland would be able to have more confidence that there had been proper planning and consultation between the placing authority and the Scottish local authority. It would mean that there was a jointly agreed, in terms of our amendments, care planning meeting between those two local authorities, where it has agreed what the child's needs and rights are and who is going to meet them. It would mean that the child was much clearer about what their rights are in Scotland. It would mean that the child was able to contribute to those conversations and those processes. There is a really interesting point of comparison. If an English local authority is placing a child into another English local authority, there is a legal obligation on them to conduct a consultation and a meeting within five days of doing that, so that they can agree exactly those issues. We do not have that. There is no legal obligation on them to do that when they are placing into Scotland. However, those regulations could be drafted in a way that makes sure that that meeting happens. That is the kind of amendment that we are suggesting here. I appreciate that you have already said that the Children's Care and Justice Bill is the place to properly sort that out. We all agree that deprivation of liberty needs to be a bare minimum and only in absolutely essential cases. It follows on from what Ross was asking, but just again to be clear in my mind, the status quo is not going to stop cross-border placements from happening. Do you agree that it will not decelerate the cross-border placements, either? The status quo, as we have it. I think that the important thing to remember in all of this is that this has happened before. Before, in terms of secure accommodation cross-border placements in 2017, there had to be an agreement between the UK Government and the Scottish Government that English children could be placed within secure accommodation in accordance with our statutory framework. It happened then. It happened as a temporary fix. It happened to resolve the situation that was happening down south with the increasing absence and lack of resources down south. It is exactly the same as has happened now, but we are now in a much worse position. So, when that happened, there was an agreement that the orders from England would convert into compulsory supervision orders in Scotland with authorisation for secure. That would then mean, in Scots law, that children could only be placed deprived of their liberty and secure accommodation, and that has been the existing situation. What has happened since then and what we are hugely concerned about is the sunset clause that was supposed to take place. There was supposed to be a review of those placements from 2017. That, as far as we know, has not happened. What we have seen is an exponential rise in the number of English children being placed in our secure accommodation. That has had quite devastating consequences as a result for Scottish children in Scotland who have not been able to access secure beds. That is a separate issue, an entirely separate issue, but we have to learn from the difficulties that happen. As soon as we authorise and condone the practice of moving children far from their families and communities, we could absolutely see it. The disincentive that is required is to say that Scots law does not allow those types of placements to operate at all. If you want to comply with Scots law, you have to raise the standards up to what we expect for Scottish children. I am looking at your proposals, your amendments, and a lot of them make perfect sense in the context of the legislation that is coming down the track. In a practical sense, I want to pick up at one point—this is not a hostile question, please. You talk about that any care home accepting young people must be registered, regulated and inspected by the care inspector as a care home for children and young people, and has a recent adequate inspection report. We would all agree that that would be a fundamental issue, but that is not practical at the moment. We are still in the pandemic, and there will probably be a backlog of inspections in those places. What you are proposing with the best of intentions could make the situation worse. If there were insufficient numbers of homes that met that particular criteria, then there would be an issue about where to place those children full stock, would there not? What we are trying to avoid with that provision is the situation that we have seen in England and Wales. Within the context of how the care system works, a lot of local authorities have divested themselves of their care homes, a lot of private providers having moved into that space, children in care being seen as a commodified resource. What we have seen over the past few years is, because that is seen as an area for people to secure profit, care homes popping up like mushrooms being inspected 69 months later, being immediately closed down because the inspection reports, quite frankly, will give you nightmares, at which point we know that there has been a child there for a significant period of time whose experience is sometimes quite horrendous experience. That is what this suggestion is trying to mitigate against, is to try and make sure that we are confident that we are only placing children into provision that can meet their needs. I welcome the Scottish Government having a further conversation about that. You could talk about what does recent mean in terms of what kind of time period we are talking about, but we do need to try and make sure that we have a level of confidence that, when we are authorising and allowing children to be placed into residential units in Scotland to be deprived of that ability, which is the most significant human rights interference that the state can take in the life of the child, we are making sure that these units are of a minimum standard. You are right to do so absolutely, but do you recognise the risk if that was accepted, that we could have fewer opportunities than are required to place these children now? It might restrict the supply, but we would argue that the balance of risk there is a necessary consideration in terms of taking a rights-respecting approach. As Nick mentioned earlier, the Cairnspector has published this report and it is hugely welcome and answers this question. It has undertaken an inspection and a review of those placements over the past two and a half years, and it has made a number of recommendations and proposals to the Government and to themselves as to how to improve the inspection. What would you consider to be recent? From my point of view and looking at what the Cairnspector has been doing during that time, it would have to be within the last six months. The difficulty that we have seen is that places are popping up, places are being registered as care homes, which is absolutely fine. They are perhaps being regulated and authorised as care homes, but they are not meeting the standards that would be required for secure. Just made a thinker related to that. You said a couple of moments ago that there is a question about the connection between the young person and the Scottish ministers if it came to that issue of should ministers pursue the placing authority. How would they know to do that if the young person did not get any connection with them? I think that that is related to the question of the role of the advocate. I completely accept what you are saying about that an advocate is not a substitute for legal representation, and there are complications there, because those are young people who have a lawyer in the first instance. It will not be a lawyer who practices Scots law in almost all cases, but is there not a potential role for the advocate there? If there is a question of how do you create that connection between the young person and the Scottish ministers for the use of that potential power to pursue through the share of court, could that not be addressed through guidance for those independent advocates? That is part of their role in advocating for the young person. If they believe in discussion with the young person that it is necessary, if the young person believes that it is necessary, part of their role is about creating that connection with ministers with the Scottish Government to see whether that option of pursuit through the courts is a viable one. The advocate can certainly play a role in that. The advocate's role is to elevate the child's voice within proceedings and within meetings and discussions that the child is involved in. Advocates play a hugely valuable role, but advocates will not necessarily know what the child's rights are in Scots law. The child, again, is one of the things that we keep referring to in a report that I know members have not seen, which is a little unfair, but one of the things that the Care Inspectorate report flags up is that children very often arrive in Scotland with very, very little awareness of their rights in English law, let alone in Scots law. Those are the most acutely vulnerable children, so relying on an advocate to provide that level of safeguard and that link to ministers while they can play a role is not sufficient in our view. It has been really interesting what you have said so far. We have all more or less accepted that the Scottish Government is in a really difficult position about this. You want to keep these kind of orders to an absolute minimum and as close to home as possible. Any indication of what kind of work you have done with the UK Government, because obviously what has driven this is an under provision in England, so have you lobbied the UK Government? How have you got on with that? We have been in close contact with our sister officers in England and Wales and with legal and human rights organisations in both jurisdictions. In fact, and I should have said it at the start, the position that we have taken in relation to these regulations was informed very, very strongly by a round table that we conducted shortly after the regulations were published, and that involved children's commissioners' offices, advocates, solicitors from both jurisdictions and human rights organisations. The view reflected in that round table was absolutely unanimous about what needs to change around the regulations and how strong they are. Really, it is the Scottish Government that has the contact with UK Government ministers that needs to make that argument for additional provision. It is out with the mandate of the Children's Commissioner in Scotland to be telling the UK Government how to set up its own care system. Our sister office in England has been very strong on this over the last few years. They have conducted a lot of research. The previous Children's Commissioner was very vocal about it. The courts in England have been very vocal about it, both in terms of the High Court and the Supreme Court. Lady Black, again in the retake case, referred to matters having been brought repeatedly to the attention of those whose job it is to do something about it. This is not an issue that the UK Government is unaware of, but what we have in front of us now are Scottish regulations, which are very much within the mandate of the Scottish Children's Commissioner to comment on and to effect. We have the Education Committee here, and you are here in front of us. Is that a route to the Education Select Committee at Westminster? Obviously, it is ministers that are going to make that decision, so it is to get to them. We are very happy to provide evidence to the Education Committee at Westminster about that. It is an issue that has come before the Parliament down there. As I said, this is not a new issue. This is something that the courts and the Children's Commissioner in England have been lobbying on and advocating for for some years now. I am sure that my good friend Robert Halfon will be very pleased to hear from you and others. Does any other member of the committee wish to say anything at this point? Well, thank you to Nick Hobbs and Maria Galley for being with us in person to give this very important evidence to the committee. I wish you very pleasant rest of the day. The public parts of today's meeting is now in end. We will now consider a private, a final agenda item in private, and so can I ask members attending virtually to reconvene on Microsoft Teams. Thank you and good morning to everyone.