���˿���

I will put to Jim Wallace from Aberlour a variation of the same question, on the additional resource that your organisation might bring. It has been reported to me in my home city of Dundee that the figures from a third sector organisation—those that are centrally held—could be up to 50 or 60 per cent on a contract. Ms McAteer provides a representation of that. On a larger contract, that is easier—I understand that—but do you feel that Aberlour brings that additional benefit?

I and some other committee members were privileged to visit some of your workers in Dundee earlier this week, and we heard about some of the work that they do. In that respect, I found your comment about 30 or so years’ experience in social work useful, because my understanding of that conversation was that that kind of work used to be done by social workers. Is it fair to say that?

I have a lot of sympathy with all the contributions so far. In terms of the core of what Mr Mundell says, I think that the early pre-amendment drafts should be published and they should absolutely be in the public domain—we should be able to have a look at them.

I also agree with all the other comments about how the committee should work: we want to work together collegiately. However, we need to find a way to tell the Government that we want to see those publications and see them quickly, and that we want to be able to understand the process of amendment and the influences brought to bear on the publications. How we do that is the question, but if we can come to a resolution on that, we want to be pretty clear that we should see those publications as soon as possible.

I turn to Jim Wallace. There is now a reliance on the work that you have all described. It is important that that work is being done, because the social work services that previously intervened no longer exist. Is that correct?

I hear what you say loud and clear. I have to say that I was hugely impressed by the workers whom we met earlier in the week, and I give all credit to your organisation for the work that they are doing. The tone of my question was not critical. We are trying to understand what has happened with the money and what it has replaced. Has there been genuine additionality? Is new activity happening as a result, or are we seeing money that had been in the public sector being given a role elsewhere? I am not casting aspersions on how things are being performed at the moment. It is important for us to understand whether more is being done or whether things are being done differently.

Finally, I want to ask about the precariousness of funding. Your written submission makes some comment on that, and I know that that is a core issue for local authorities and headteachers in seeking to sustain engagement over a long period of time. Although the amount of money has been reduced this year, the Scottish Government has given a guarantee in respect of that type of activity over the coming years to the end of this parliamentary session. However, the challenge is that the money is set against the local government budget. What will happen if the interventions that we are talking about are taken out and the money has to be used to plug gaps? I took from the written submissions—from Barnardo’s Scotland’s submission in particular—that that is a challenge and that we have to see the issue in the context of local government budgets. Is that fair to say?

Perhaps Maureen McAteer can start off. I will then come to Jim Wallace.

I am not sure that that level of agreement makes a big difference to the young people in my home city of Dundee who are not getting the improved outcomes that they are looking for. We are now looking at the biggest gap that we have ever had. I note that you have told us to be cautious about focusing on attainment, but I am not going to be cautious about it. I want to see better attainment, particularly for the kids from the poorest backgrounds. It is not the only thing, but it is incredibly important.

As I have said, we now have the biggest attainment gap that we have ever had. We are now six years on and £1 billion down. I recognise that we have had the pandemic in the middle of that, and it is a huge issue, but the fact is that we had not really made any discernible progress before the pandemic. In fact, things were going backwards in a lot of places.

To me, this is not about quick fixes. Actually, there has been policy consensus on and agreement with the Government’s approach to this issue for a long time now, but we are not seeing the difference that we would have hoped to have seen. Is it not fair to say that?

I will close on this point, convener. We have heard a really useful observation on the comparison with other comparable cities and urban areas in England. I am thinking, for instance, about areas in which progress has been limited by persistent disadvantage, deep poverty or multiple deprivation—we could describe it in different ways. If we were to cut funding by 60 per cent across the board for those most deprived communities—or “challenge authorities” as they are called in Scotland—what results would we see?

So it is for PEF, but not for the core attainment challenge funding.

On Professor Ainscow’s point about quick fixes and timescales, I note that the attainment challenge started in 2016 and we have spent £1 billion of taxpayers’ money on it. When would you expect to see discernible progress? After all, six years does not really seem like a quick fix—it is the entirety of a child’s secondary education.

I will come back later to my substantive question about the other Ps in Dundee being “public pounds” and the substantial cuts that are being made at the moment.