Seòmar agus comataidhean

The figures are from the Scottish Parliament information centre. If you dig into your briefing, I am sure that you will discover that there is a £268 million cut. Councillors across the board, including Scottish National Party councillors, are spitting mad about the local authority settlement, so I cannot understand why you are not, given that education is a massive part of what local authorities do. Why are you not angry?

There has been a £100 million cut. Do you have no issues with that at all?

With respect, your answer was rubbish, because the Scottish Parliament information centre has made it clear that there is a £268 million cut to local authority budgets, and half of local authorities’ spending is on education. You have made various promises to fund extra teachers and other things, and you should, of course, fund those, because those were your election promises, but that does not entitle you to cut £100 million from core school budgets.

This is not about England; it is about Scotland. I do not want to hear comparisons with elsewhere, because I care about pupils in Scotland. Cabinet secretary, why on earth are you not angry about the cut? I am angry. I cannot believe that the Government is cutting budgets at this time, so why are you not angry about it? That is what I do not understand. What you have said is very managerial.

The cabinet secretary has followed the script this morning. Teachers, councillors, pupils and parents will listen to the cabinet secretary’s answers and will draw one conclusion, which is that she is not standing up for Scottish education and making the case for it. There would not be a £100 million cut to core school budgets if she was making the case.

I have finished my questions.

I know that some companies that pay the levy now do less training than they did before. That cannot be right.

They are just doing less training. They are not companies that would naturally take on apprentices and now, with the way that the funds are set up, they are doing less training than they were before. How could that ever be credible?

Is the situation with the apprenticeship levy not quite a guddle? We have a mixture of policies from the UK Government, which sets the levy, and the Scottish Government, which sets how the funds that come through the funding system are applied. Not every company that pays the levy requires an apprentice. The flexible workforce development fund is not really that flexible and it certainly is not big enough. It was designed to compensate levy payers in the apprenticeship scheme, because not every company needs an apprentice. The flexible workforce development fund has now been diluted by the inclusion of non-levy payers in the system. Is it a surprise that many companies are now doing less training than they were before the apprenticeship levy was brought in? Do you have any reflections on what I have said?

Go on.

My question is about the Morgan review, additional support for learning and needs. On a scale of one to 10, how close are we to meeting the vision of the Morgan review?

That is fine. A couple of weeks ago, we heard from the Educational Institute of Scotland, which is concerned about the consequences of the inadequacies in the system and the effects on teachers of what they have to cope with in the classroom. As we move towards mainstreaming, are we providing enough support so that teachers can cope? We know that demand has increased during the pandemic and that it has exacerbated existing issues and challenges. Are we giving enough support to the teachers on the front line who are having to cope with this?