Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Even though I do not agree with a lot of the policy intent in the bill, this is one area on which I think that we can all agree and say quite straightforwardly that it is a positive aspect. If the Scottish Government is reviewing accessibility at polling stations, that is a good thing, and we should just get on with it.

Last week, there was an exchange about the fact that, although the list was imperfect, a lot of the requirements for making polling stations accessible were on the face of the bill, and concern was expressed that a move to regional adjustments could give rise to vagueness and a patchwork approach in Scotland. I seek reassurance that, however the Scottish Government takes this forward, a consistent approach to accessibility will be taken in all polling stations in all places in Scotland.

In addition, I ask that the situation be kept under review with the establishment of, say, a voting accessibility panel that could directly influence statutory guidance to the Electoral Management Board or returning officers on what polling stations might look like. I think that this should happen not just once; instead, the situation should be kept under review, and I would welcome your thoughts in that respect.

Given the time constraints, I will ask just one more question about consultation. You should—absolutely—consult on things that you are minded to change or are considering for change, but I would suggest that, if there are other matters that you are pretty sure that you are not going to change, you should not consult on them, as you will simply create the expectation that change is coming when that is not the case. I do not think that that is the right thing to do in any consultation. I hope instead that you will provide some space in the consultation paper to afford individuals or groups the opportunity to raise additional matters that are not covered by the thrust of the policy and that those comments will be analysed.

Those final comments were just about a technical aspect of consultations, but my substantive question is about ensuring that accessibility is not just a one-off consideration but is kept under constant review.

I can certainly hear you, convener. Can you hear me?

That is perfect, convener. Before I ask my question, I will take the opportunity to comment on the exchange between Mr Mountain and the minister.

Good morning, minister. The Scottish Government’s position appears to be that there has been very little time in which to have meaningful engagement and dialogue with the UK Government. The Scottish Government’s position is that that dialogue has not been substantive or meaningful, and you do not feel that you have been co-producing the UK bill. The committee will reflect on that, and we will take a view on that.

My question is on the Scottish Government’s view. It is clear that there is a timescale in which the Scottish Government will itself legislate for the bits of the bill where you believe there is clearly merit, but you would wish to consult appropriately and meaningfully within Scotland to get the best bill for Scotland. When you do that, however the UK Government legislates at a UK level, will you learn from that experience? When you legislate in Scotland, will you continue a dialogue with the UK Government? I would hope that, if the Scottish Government or the Welsh Government found a better way to change electoral legislation, that would be shared across the UK.

Even though, to date, relationships have not been positive, it is important that the Scottish Government uses the consultation for its pending electoral reforms to feed back to the UK Government. Can you give some reassurance that that dialogue will continue, irrespective of the different positions of the Scottish and UK Governments?

I see from the meeting papers that how we assign and categorise notional expenditure will change under the UK bill. I also see that the Scottish Government has a degree of sympathy for that. Will you say some more about it?