Seòmar agus comataidhean

Does Megan Farr have any comment?

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?

What Louise Goodlad said about the transparency of the money is key, and we can come back to that. An organisation might not understand where the money is coming from, and I have to say that, at times, it is also difficult for us to tell. I see colleagues nodding their heads. It would be a positive thing to understand that.

My question relates to the additionality that the third sector brings. I have had representations from third sector providers about the amount of resource that they bring to the table on top of commissioned work. Maureen McAteer, have you done any research or work on the percentage value that you bring in on top of the commissioned work that you do?

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 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.

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.

I want to ask about the allocation of resource. As you will recognise, part of the reason for the inquiry is that significant changes have been made to how the resource that the Government spends on behalf of the Scottish taxpayer—and which is, rightly, significant—is allocated across Scotland. I have asked ministers questions on this, but I do not think that I have had much of an answer. There seems to be a move away from an analysis of multiple deprivation, although I recognise that there is poverty in all parts of the country and that the money is being spread more widely. Do you think that the recent changes to the allocation of that money will be beneficial to the educational recovery of the most deprived children and communities in Scotland?