Seòmar agus comataidhean

No, I do not.

Thank you, Laura. I anticipated that you would say that, and it sounds eminently reasonable.

Your submission notes that there are already “significant reporting requirements” with the moneys that local authorities get, and that COSLA is concerned about any additional reporting requirements. However, we are Scotland’s Education, Children and Young People Committee, and given that there is a significant investment of £145.5 million in addition to the core education budget going to local authorities, we are seeking to understand how that money is deployed.

We get that there is a need for local flexibility. However, do you think that it would be reasonable for COSLA or local authorities to provide reasonable detail on how many primary and secondary school teachers have been employed; how many additional support needs staff have been deployed; the purpose and role of those staff; and what a positive outcome would look like for that spend?

I know that that sounds hugely bureaucratic. I know that schools know their kids best and that local authorities know their local communities best. I get all that. However, at some point, the committee will say to the Scottish Government, “You have put that money in, so what results have you got for it?”

We cannot just scrutinise the Government; we must also shine a light on how local authorities and COSLA view that spend and on what the benefits of it have been through Covid. Perhaps you could say what the benefits of the £80 million that has already been spent during Covid have been, and what you anticipate that the committee could do to measure positive outcomes in the years ahead for that significant additional spend.

I will be brief, convener. Just to be dispassionate about it, I think that the committee wants to analyse the impact of the spend, which is an important issue. One number that I did not give earlier was the £240 million for additional staffing during Covid, and the £145.5 million that I have already mentioned went into a core education funding budget. I am putting that on the record because we have to ensure that when we compare figures from one year to the next we are comparing apples with apples.

Underlying all this, though, is the need for a robust reporting exercise by local authorities on the number of temporary posts that existed—and the areas in which they existed—the year before Covid, through Covid and the first year after Covid in a way that is not bureaucratic—

I will not push further on that, and I know that that was a very detailed question to ask you to respond to at committee, but if COSLA could have a think about that and perhaps give us additional information, that would be genuinely welcome. We are not seeking to be awkward about it, and I get the point that there are still challenges, but we need to follow the money from Government to local authorities and from local authorities to delivery at a local level. Any additional information that you could give would be helpful.

We have Mike Corbett here, and he could give a union perspective. Mike, have there been discussions with union representatives and local authorities or COSLA, given the amount of additional money that is going into the system—quite rightly, as the need is clearly there—about how the money could best be deployed and about ensuring that there are permanent contracts? Has the focus been on additional support needs or on lost learning in secondary schools among pupils who are getting towards exams, for instance? Is it on primary schools? Is it all of the above?

The important thing is to ask what discussions are taking place between local authorities, COSLA and union representatives about the best way to shape and direct that spend.

I am pleased that Mike Corbett mentioned temporary and permanent teachers. Over the years, one of the issues for local authorities has been the many temporary teachers out there who are not getting permanent contracts. That has also been an ask of unions. It is surely positive that a lot of temporary teachers can have that contractual basis made permanent. I hope that Mr Corbett would welcome that.

The money is being spent in real time. I have absolute sympathy for the idea of an audit of where the greatest needs are and how the money is deployed strategically. I get that, but I also get that the money is being spent in real time, so we have to get it out and use it as quickly as possible. Given that we are spending the money in real time and are still analysing needs in the education sector when it comes to where the money can best be strategically spent, could that be an argument—for clarity, I am not making this argument, but it might follow on from Mr Corbett’s point—for some of the new posts to involve temporary contracts, so that a strategic decision is not locked in in still deciding how best to deploy resources? Would that be reasonable?

My preference would always be for permanent, full-time, contracted teachers at the local authority level, who are given that absolute security, but I am conscious that you mentioned locking in decisions on permanent posts when we are perhaps not sure about how best to direct that money. From a union perspective, is there an argument to be made for some of the new money that is coming forward being used initially for temporary or short-term appointments, as we start to audit or assess where the greatest needs for our children are across local authorities?

Yes, but we need information that allows us to measure the impact and what is actually happening on the ground. In any case, we need something consistent, because all the politicians around this table can pick different figures and use them as they see fit. For me, the important thing is to have a dispassionate, factual and robust reporting exercise on this matter, and I do not feel that we have that just now.

I would like to ask Laura Caven of COSLA a couple of questions about the funds that have been put in for education recovery through Covid and beyond.

There was an £80 million Covid fund running throughout the pandemic up to now. It has now been made permanent, so it will be in the core budget next year. I suggest that that money has been employing throughout Covid, and can employ permanently from April next year, 1,400 teachers and 250 support staff.

There will also be a £65.5 million new release of cash from April next year—again, in the core budget—which can employ 1,000 additional teachers and 500 support staff. Overall, that is 2,400 more teachers and 750 more support staff. I suspect that the demands are such that those staff are very much needed and that schools could always do with more staff—I get that.

However, with regard to the staff who are already in post and those who are likely to be recruited, what is COSLA’s view on how they should be deployed? Should they be deployed generally across the education estate in both primary and secondary schools? Alternatively, are local authorities looking to target the use of teachers and support staff to address, say, additional support needs or to free up teacher time elsewhere? What is COSLA’s sense of how that money has been spent to date? More importantly, how should it be spent in the future?

I have some further questions relating to that, depending on what Laura Caven’s thoughts are.

It is important to set out why voter ID has been ruled out. We heard last week that just 0.7 per cent of poll workers thought that electoral fraud was an issue, which is a tiny amount. In one of the voter ID pilots in England, up to 30 per cent of voters were turned away from the polling station.

It might be helpful to put on the record, minister, why you believe that voter ID should be categorically ruled out. I happen to agree, but it is important to be clear about why that should be done.

That is important. The Governments of the UK are allowed to disagree with one another. No one in the Scottish, Welsh or UK Government has a monopoly on wisdom, so it is important that the dialogue continues.

I listened to Mr McLennan’s exchange with the minister about how, with third-party campaigners in elections, we ensure greater transparency about where money comes from and how it is spent. I apologise if I missed this during the exchange, but I did not hear the expression “dark money”. I do not know whether the UK bill—I must admit that I should perhaps read it more carefully—will deal with concerns about that.

For example, there were concerns about spend ahead of the Scottish elections. In particular, it was hard to shine a light on where the money came from for a £46,000 Facebook campaign that perhaps sought to influence the Scottish elections. The point that I am making is all in the public domain, but I want to ensure that it is not prejudiced by party-political views, perspectives and interests, so I have not given a context to that spend.

The public are well aware of the expression “dark money”. They have concerns about the lack of transparency about where money comes from, how it is spent and how it could interfere in, and unfairly try to influence, elections. Is there anything in the UK bill that deals directly with dark money? Will the proposed Scottish bill seek to address that as well, to ensure that our elections in Scotland—and throughout the UK—are open, transparent and appropriately funded in a way that voters believe is fair and free?

Thank you very much.