Chamber and committees

One of the growing areas of economic inequality in Scotland is between east and west. Given the location of the freeports, a lot of concern has already been expressed, particularly by local authorities in the west of Scotland, which are already dealing with significant challenges of deprivation and depopulation. I take Inverclyde and Argyle and Bute as examples. They are concerned that, as a result of the expected economic displacement resulting from the freeports, there will be further depopulation and less investment in the economy in the west of Scotland, which has already seen far lower growth and income, for example, than the east coast.

Would it be of concern to the Scottish Property Federation if we saw further displacement from west to east aggravating those existing inequalities?

Are there any particular examples of completed actions that you want to highlight, which would illustrate matters for the committee? I recognise that it has not been that long since the latest revision, but is there anything that has not yet been completed and on which you would have hoped more progress would have been made by this point?

That sounds excellent, in principle; I do not think that any of us would disagree with that approach. However, how far can it go? The range of additional needs is so vast that not every teacher can be comprehensively trained in how to support every kind of additional need, even annually. Teachers might have children with one particular need one year and have to retrain the next year. That feels, ultimately, like quite a burden to put on a classroom teacher every single year, as opposed to there being a model that is more about having a plethora of specialist staff being available to be redeployed to the right setting each year.

I will move on to the action plan and the progress that has been made since it was revised last year. How is that progress being monitored, and what would you highlight as evidence of the progress that has been made since that latest revision?

One of Angela Morgan’s overarching recommendations is that we move towards a system of universal, instead of additional, provision. You have all touched on that point in your various answers this morning, but it would be useful for us if you could provide a summary of what that principle means in practice in the classroom. What would be different if we were to take that approach instead of the approach that has been taken until now?

Thank you—there is a huge amount to unpack there, but I want to bring in Sarah Watters first.

I am sorry to jump in, but the point about general revenue-raising powers is important. Is that one of your preferred outcomes of the new deal for local government, the fiscal framework and the wider package of work and discussions that are taking place? Are you currently advocating for that with the Scottish Government?

That is not a good use of your time.

You talked about early engagement about the programme for government. Does COSLA accept that trust in that process would have to be robust and to work both ways? To be brutally honest, there have been issues in the very recent past when there have been leaks from COSLA about Scottish Government policy announcements. We would have to move quite dramatically away from that culture, which I presume is not an officer culture but is the reality of COSLA being led by 32 councillors from various political persuasions. Early engagement on the PFG, which is confidential until the moment when it is published, could not work if the level of leaking that we have seen from the COSLA leaders group were to continue.

Just to check, does COSLA lobby the UK Government to give the Scottish Government a multiyear settlement? That is the only way in which local government is going to get a multiyear settlement.