Seòmar agus comataidhean

You have raised an important point. As funding leaves national Government and moves to local government, it is—absolutely—for local government to determine how that money is spent if it is outside ring-fenced budgets.

It is very important that we all have a close regard to the variation in outcomes in education, which should be a shared concern for us all. The variation of how things are done in education is absolutely to be encouraged, because we should not have a one-size-fits-all policy set from Edinburgh. However, variation in the outcomes for children is something that we are determined to look at. I would point to some of the key aspects in the Scottish attainment challenge funding, which I raised with the convener earlier, that we are determined to move forward with and that look specifically at variation.

In other areas, we will, of course, set outcome frameworks for what we expect from those programmes. There are outcome frameworks for the 1,140 hours policy, so that there is an understanding of what is delivered for the funding that goes in. It is important that not just the Scottish Government but local authorities know what the outcomes of ring-fenced funding are and that they have an awareness of what happens with the funding that leaves national Government and goes to local government.

The overall settlement that has been provided will deliver real-terms growth. It protects core budgets in cash terms, it will allow additional funding to be provided for teachers and support staff, and it contains funding for the 100 days commitments, some of which I mentioned in my introductory remarks. It also contains funding for the free school meals settlements.

If Mr Rennie wishes more money to go into local government or elsewhere, I am sure that he will tell me—or perhaps Ms Forbes later in the budget process—where money should be cut from to allow that to happen.

With the greatest respect, Mr Marra, local authorities have taken the action that they deemed necessary to deal with the challenges. There has been limited action because local authorities have been reassured that what is in place is adequate for what needs to happen. I am not aware of any local authority that has been held back in any action because of a limitation in funds.

I assure Mr Marra that I listen very carefully to what the First Minister says at all times. She and I are absolutely on the same page on this, because there is a recognition that the money can be used for air filters, but, of course, it is a matter for the use of guidance. As with all our reactions to Covid, policy must be based on expert advice. Again, with the greatest respect to Mr Marra, the expert advice—including what comes from SAGE and the Health and Safety Executive—would not suggest or lead to the policy that he wishes to put in place, because it does not equate to what the expert advice says needs to happen.

As a Government, we have ensured an opportunity for local authorities to move forward with remedial action, including, if required, the use of HEPA air-cleaning filters. It is very important that that opportunity is there. It is already within the guidance that that can happen, if local authorities wish, so nothing is stopping it happening at that point.

I am very keen to ensure that we take on concerns. Before Christmas, Mr Marra raised a concern, which I encouraged him to ensure was taken up through official channels. In conjunction with my COSLA colleague, Councillor Stephen McCabe, I have written to all the unions to say that we have a workforce issues group where we continuously ask for specifics, so that the Scottish Government or local authorities can act on specific concerns that teachers have. We have not had any specific concerns that we need to look at but, once again, we have written to all unions to ask them not for general concerns but for specific concerns from specific teachers, which we can deal with in confidence, if required. We take that very seriously, and we have reached out to ensure that that can happen.

Mr Marra, the fund can be spent in any way that a local authority thinks is required. I think that it is important that we give local authorities the ultimate flexibility to allow that to happen, and I certainly hope that they will take up that flexibility and use it in any way they require to enable them to meet the guidance, which is based on expert advice. We will take any individual concerns exceptionally seriously.

The point is a valid one. There are many impacts on education from other parts of Scottish Government expenditure. Closing the poverty-related attainment gap is a key concern for Government. One of the aspects of the issue is the need to tackle child poverty at its source, and the Scottish child payment, which Stephanie Callaghan mentioned, is an example of what we are doing in that regard. There is extremely close working going on between education officials and child poverty officials in Shona Robison’s portfolio to ensure that we are working together collegiately on child poverty and education. That is one example of the important impacts of other parts of Government on education.

Yes, I do. Again, the aspects around the attainment challenge funding relate specifically to some of the responses from Audit Scotland in its work on the first phase. We absolutely took that feedback on board and listened carefully to what was said as we went through the refresh for the second phase of the SAC.

The figures are updated regularly, but not in real time. For example, we know from the teacher censuses that we have 2,000 additional teachers overall. That is an important reflection of the funding that is going in. However, we still need to see the figures—they are not yet showing up in a teacher census because of the timing of when the census is done—on the move from temporary to permanent contracts. We will see them in the future, in the figures that come out of the teacher census.

The Government’s clear direction, along with encouragement, is that the funding has now been made permanent. We heard from local authorities that one of the reasons why the number of teachers on temporary contracts was so high was that the funding was temporary. We have now taken that challenge away from local authorities. They—not national Government—are the recruiters of teachers, but, now that the funding is in place, we will be able to encourage them to ensure that they change those temporary contracts to permanent contracts. However, that will not show up in the latest teacher census, simply because of the timing—

Yes.

We would certainly like to deliver that. It is important that the Government sets itself a very challenging target, and we want to deliver that. However, that is not something that the Government can deliver; it is something for the SNCT to look at. We must look at the planning and modelling. If the reduction is to go ahead in August, as the Government would wish it to, what does that mean? Can it be delivered? We might have to move forward on a phased basis. Would that be an easier way of changing the system? The Government is keen to move forward with that from August, but we must look at the planning and modelling to see whether that is feasible across the education system.

As I said earlier, I appreciate that universities and colleges have expressed their disappointment at the settlement for those sectors. I point out the fact that this has been a difficult budget, for the reasons that I set out in my introductory remarks. The Government has spent the money that we have been allocated this year. We have had to make difficult choices in that.

I absolutely and fully appreciate the role that colleges and universities have played and will continue to play, particularly in our recovery from Covid. The fact that no consequentials arising from Covid are coming to the Scottish Government has presented us with challenges in those areas. We appreciate that. However, we have—