Seòmar agus comataidhean

I take the point. It is important that we have deadlines to drive that forward, but I also hear clearly from those in the system that there is a real need for us to look at how much change the system can cope with at once.

A lot of consultation is going on at the moment, following the completion of the national discussion, which was an important factor in forming an understanding of where Hayward and other parts of the reform process might go. For example, there is no point in defining the way that we do qualifications and assessments before we look at what we want from Scottish education.

The other aspect, which I will stick closely to, is that I have absolutely no problem in defending something taking a bit more time if what I get as part of the reform process is not as radical a reform as I want. If material comes back that does not deliver on what I want to see, I will be up front and say that we will take more time, because it must be genuine reform. If I am not happy with some of the proposals, it is better that I do that rather than accept what comes from the first round of proposals, knowing that it does not deliver the reform that I want.

There is a real urgency for us to get on with the reforms, but there is also a need for us to do it in a timely manner and to bear in mind how much is going on in the education system as we ask it to consult on the national discussion, the Hayward review and other aspects.

We have ensured that the budget settlement that we have given allows the money that comes from the Scottish Government to be protected. Some research money comes from outwith the Scottish Government, from UK funding, and that is obviously not for the Scottish Government to direct or influence. Clearly, we keep close contact with universities so that we have an understanding of what we can do to support research.

The fact that we have been able to uplift Scottish Government funding for research is a testament to the fact that we are very keen to ensure we protect the well-respected research that happens in universities.

Those decisions are taken by—

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.