���˿���

You say that the Government wants to work on a cross-party basis. Do you accept that the order makes members of the committee feel that the Government is putting the cart before the horse, and that it is disrespectful of the committee’s upcoming work?

I listened to the chair of the SQA impress upon us that this was an opportunity to get things right. However, it feels like the Government has its own agenda and has decided what it will do. It has already been said in the press that the replacement of the SQA with qualifications Scotland is only a nameplate change. We need significantly more than that. I hope that the cabinet secretary understands members’ concerns that they feel that the Government has decided what it wants to do already, before we have even got to the amendment stage, and that it is trying to railroad the legislation through the Parliament.

That is helpful, and if there is more data—not “stuff”—that you could provide the committee with, that would be useful.

I want to ask about wellbeing. From my constituency case load and meetings with teachers, I know the numbers of young people who are waiting to access child and adolescent mental health services. They are still in school, and the school is using some of the pupil equity fund money for brief mental health interventions because some of those young people can be on a waiting list for more than a year before they are seen. Where do you think that the funding is being used? Sometimes, because of waiting times, the national health service is just not providing that service for young people and schools are being forced to try to find some pupil equity fund money for projects involving, for example, counsellors in schools. There is some welcome progress around that, but there seems to be more demand for mental health services in school because CAMHS is not meeting the demand.

The cabinet secretary has mentioned my media appearances a couple of times. I am impressed that you are listening to the radio so much, cabinet secretary.

The committee heard what the cabinet secretary said about some positive destinations, but voluntary work—there is the issue of whether that is maintained—and activity agreements between schools and local authorities are positive destinations that are not tracked for a significant number of young people. Is the Government reviewing the opportunities that are seen as positive destinations for young people but that might not continue? There is a need to understand the fact that many young people—15-year-olds—who are not going to school but are getting personal skills development, often in the third sector, are not necessarily given any opportunity to get on to the courses that they would like to do. I would love to visit Barnardo’s with the cabinet secretary to introduce her to some of the 15-year-olds who tell me about the courses that they want to do but cannot at this moment in their lives.

The courses are out-of-school education within the—

Thanks for that. I think that Mr Rennie might want a right to reply.

Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials.

We need to put on record that we are working to the Government’s timetable and that it has been the Government’s decision to leave the bill until the end of this parliamentary session. The committee does not have a choice in that regard. However, I would have liked to have seen the bill being considered much earlier in the session, and I think that every other member would probably agree with me on that.

I return to the convener’s point. I expect various amendments on the board to be lodged. The bill will establish a board, which other people will potentially join as a result of those amendments. Will you not need to come back to the committee after stage 3 with that anyway? Does that not present an opportunity for the Government to lay orders on what will be a reformed board? Given everything that you have outlined, would delaying the order until stage 2 not be more sensible, because by then we will have a clearer view of the political consensus on what the board structure would look like? As the convener has outlined, we are talking about a matter of weeks.

I am not sure whether the cabinet secretary will be able to directly answer this question, given her wife’s involvement, but how has the attainment Scotland fund been supporting outcomes for care-experienced young people? Specifically, how have outcomes been evaluated?

It is about positive destinations, and whether the Government would look at reviewing both voluntary work and activity agreements in that context. The Government says that those are positive destinations—they can come to an end, but the Government thinks that those young people are in a positive destination.

I have concerns about the possibility that, in Lothian, the Government’s target on waiting lists is being met only because people are being re-evaluated in order to remove them from those lists and send them to third sector services.

I want to move on, although I do not know whether the cabinet secretary can answer this point.

On Monday evening, we met some young people who have navigated the system. We got some really good feedback on some of the reforms, which we will capture and put on the record.

Given the conversation that we have just had, I will go back to the UCAS application process. On Monday, a suggestion was put to us on self-identification. Does the UCAS application form provide an opportunity to improve and broaden out the ability to self-identify early on? A number of people said that they did not think that it was fair to use SIMD20 as the measurement. They thought that taking a case-by-case approach, broadening it out and using school feedback on individuals would be far better. What are your thoughts on using the application process to do that?