Chamber and committees

I will happily leave that to the minister.

—we need lean delivery in the Scottish Government. It is a real challenge to our agencies, under difficult financial circumstances, to take part in and assist with the reform process, but that must be done in as lean a fashion as possible. In the meantime, they will get on with business as usual and carry out their functions to ensure that they continue to deliver. Yes, it is challenging—there is no doubt about that—but there is a challenging budget settlement overall. That will ensure that we deliver on a number of commitments.

With regard to the reform package, I am glad that Mr Kerr said that lean is not a bad thing, because we need to get maximum value out of this.

I am extremely concerned about the lack of progress on teacher numbers. As you mentioned, the £145.5 million was baselined in the local government settlement because I had been told by local authorities that one of the main challenges in moving from temporary to permanent contracts or, indeed, in increasing teacher numbers was the fact that some of our funding had been on a temporary basis, so local authorities were unwilling—quite understandably—to move to permanent contracts for teachers. Therefore, an agreement was reached with local authorities. We had an understanding within the Scottish Government—and I thought that we had an understanding with local government—that the money was to assist with teacher numbers and to assist with the move from temporary to permanent contracts.

I was therefore exceptionally disappointed when there was not only no real improvement in the balance between temporary and permanent contracts but a small decrease in the number of teachers. What the Government can do in relation to that is quite limited in some ways, because local authorities are the employers. I cannot instruct a local authority to employ a certain number of teachers on a particular type of contract.

However, what I certainly would expect—and what we are now moving into detailed discussions with local authorities for the forthcoming year on—is that, when money is given with an understanding that it is to pay for something, it is actually used to fulfil those requirements. I will be holding meetings with COSLA spokespeople to discuss that specific issue, and I think that there is a genuine wish from all parties to see an improvement in the picture on this.

There is work that local authorities can do and should be doing to ensure that they are providing permanent contracts where possible. Human resources responses will vary from local authority to local authority—local authorities are the employers and, quite rightly, they should have the freedom to do what they need to do in an HR and recruitment setting. However, I would hope that we have a general agreement that permanent contracts are better for teachers and that they make the most sense.

I very much hope to see an improvement in that picture this year, so that there is an agreement between us and local authorities to deliver on the money that we have for recruitment. The £145.5 million remains in the budget. We are providing greater flexibility to councils to use that funding, because I appreciate that there are recruitment and retention issues and challenges. We are trying to be as flexible as possible, but, to be blunt, if we have an agreement at the start of the year that the money should be used for recruitment, my expectation is that it will be. I am very keen to see whether we can reset and see some shared understanding following the meetings that will take place on the matter.

There is a shared understanding that it is unacceptable for anyone who goes to work to face violence, intimidation, threats and so on. Our teachers have the right—as anyone does—to go to work in safety and with the reassurance that, if anything happens, they will have the support of their employer.

In many ways, SAGRABIS—I appreciate that that is not a title that trips off the tongue—is the area where local authorities and national Government come together and work with the professional associations and others to ensure that we are looking at the national guidance, different policies and what can be done. The group is designed specifically around taking forward proactive changes that need to happen.

I think that a piece of research has been started recently—it was delayed because of Covid—to look at the extent of the issue. However, even without that, we all know that there are unacceptable incidents in our classrooms. Although the research is very important, it does not get us away from the fact that one incident is one too many, so policies need to be in place.

The points that have been raised about how local authorities deal with the issue and what more could be done are exactly the points that that group should look at. I would be more than happy to provide further details about what happened in the group’s most recent meeting, which was at the tail end of last year, and what the plans are for that work. If Mr Kerr would like to correspond further on the issue once he has seen those details, perhaps we can take the matter forward.

The £200 million a year for the Scottish attainment challenge plays a very important role. The intention is to ensure that local authorities and schools directly, through pupil equity funding, receive the additional funding that can assist them in delivering progress.

The achievement of curriculum for excellence levels—ACEL—statistics have shown that we have seen some progress on that. We are not quite back to pre-pandemic levels of attainment, but we have seen some signs of recovery, which is positive.

It is important to say that it is not just the attainment challenge funding that helps with that aspect. Yesterday, we discussed in the chamber the fact that the wider Government work on child poverty is also very important. It is important to try to tackle poverty at source through the Scottish child payment, for example. That is key. There is also the important work that we are doing on the cost of the school day as we try to assist with those aspects.

On how the money is spent on the Scottish attainment challenge, it is clear that a significant sum is going through that, and, as members would expect, there are reporting mechanisms. Schools are entitled to spend the PEF money as they think is right for their pupils, as long as it is within the national guidance. That is an important freedom to give to headteachers in an empowered system. However, clearly, there is accountability for that money. Local authorities can also assist in ensuring that schools are spending the money. They cannot dictate how the money is spent, but they can assist. If an underspend is developing in a particular school, they can suggest how that money could be best used. Education Scotland can also assist in that process.

With regard to our seeing the impact, I refer to the national improvement framework, which was published in December. We also have an evaluation strategy for the Scottish attainment challenge, to look at how that money is being spent and to assist with the development of good practice, so that all headteachers are aware of areas where Education Scotland feels that good practice could be shared and programmes could be directed differently or adapted in schools.

So, yes, there is accountability for the money overall. Local authorities can play a part in that, but Education Scotland also ensures that we are evaluating and assisting the sharing of good practice so that the money is spent as wisely as possible.

That spend allows them to perform the important functions that they have. I have made it no secret that I wish to see reform—I have said that publicly—and that we will move to replace the SQA and Education Scotland. However, while those agencies are in place, they have important functions to carry out.

The negotiations are a matter for the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers; it is not a decision for the Government.

I am quite happy to spend all day trading statistics with Willie Rennie—I am not sure whether the rest of the committee would want that, but we can see where we get to.

There is an understanding within Government that we wish to see more progress and to see it happening more quickly. I would certainly say that, pre-pandemic, there was progress on closing the attainment gap, but it was not as quick as we would have liked, which is why we were looking to refresh the Scottish attainment challenge and how it was being delivered, to ensure that it was being as effective as possible. We have now refreshed that challenge.

There was an impact—understandably, I think—on attainment during the pandemic, not just in Scotland but elsewhere. However, we are now seeing recovery. Again, as I think I mentioned to Kaukab Stewart earlier, we are not back to where we were pre-pandemic, but, when we look at the local authority stretch aims, we can see that there is an optimism within local authorities that progress can be made.

We are not satisfied with where we are, which is why we looked to refresh the Scottish attainment challenge to ensure that we were getting maximum use out of that £1 billion expenditure, to see that it developed as quickly as possible and to accelerate that progress.

In an attempt to be fair to Willie Rennie in return, I appreciate that we need to see more progress on this—I think that I have always said that—but that is exactly why we have taken the decisions that we have taken, to refresh the use of that £1 billion and to ensure that we are getting maximum value for it.

My apologies.

We expect to see progress on that. We still have the absolute determination to fulfil the Government commitment to have 3,500 additional teachers and 500 additional support staff by the end of the parliamentary session.

As I said to Graeme Dey, discussions with COSLA are coming up in which I will be discussing, in particular, that £145.5 million and what we can expect to be delivered.

I expect to see progress now. I will not put a figure on that today, because what we have attempted to do in the past is ensure that we have an agreement with COSLA on those aspects. Clearly, that did not work last year, but I want to try to work with COSLA. We are pushing each other to see how far we can go. I am happy to come back on that once the discussions with COSLA have happened. The local authorities are the recruiters. I could sit here and name a figure. We tried to do that last year, but, with the best will in the world, those who recruited the teachers did not fulfil the agreement that we had. Therefore, I think that it would be more useful to the committee if we came back after we have had discussions with COSLA and have looked to find a shared understanding about where we might get to.