Seòmar agus comataidhean

You say that there is a clear focus on that, but you accepted my opening premise, which was that teacher workload has not got any easier in the past 10 years and that the bureaucracy around it has not reduced in those years. If there is a focus on that, why are things not improving?

I agree with the broad thrust of your answers. A lot of the additional and unnecessary workload—in particular, the bureaucratic workload—is being driven by local authorities, but not all of it is. There are some areas where it is driven by the Government, and there are some areas where local authorities are only able to add on all that bureaucracy because of a particular Government initiative.

I will use as an example the Scottish national standardised assessments, which is a very politicised matter. There is a parliamentary majority against primary 1 SNSAs. In a vote in the previous session of Parliament, Parliament decided that there should not be a continuation of primary 1 SNSAs, yet the Government has continued them. When I speak to teachers, they give me examples of the unnecessary bureaucracy that they have to deal with, and SNSAs come up a lot. That is not because the test is, in and of itself, particularly time consuming—although the cabinet secretary will be aware of my position that it does not add much value and causes a lot of stress and anxiety—but because of the bureaucracy that schools and local authorities add on top of that. A number of local authorities have bolted on significant additional reporting requirements to SNSAs. Will you reflect on that?

As much as a lot of the bureaucracy is driven by local authorities, there are many examples where they would not be able to do that if it was not for a particular Government policy. In the case of primary 1 standardised testing, Parliament told the Government to stop, yet it has continued with those tests.

The solution is more prescription for education authorities and more professional autonomy for individual teachers and schools. The cabinet secretary will be aware that I submitted to the Government a paper that I commissioned Dr Joseph Smith and Professor Mark Priestley to write. In essence, it involved a series of focus groups and some research work with teachers on their suggestions for how to reduce their workload, specifically in relation to bureaucracy. I submitted that to the Government nearly two years ago. Has the Government reflected on it? Will there be a response to it, or will the Government in some other way reflect on the feedback from teachers who have provided specific examples of areas where their bureaucratic workload can be reduced?

One of the areas on which I was proud to work with the cabinet secretary and her predecessor was the expansion of access to counselling in school for children and young people in Scotland. The Government produces a six-monthly report on that, which I think shows the success of the policy in meeting what was previously an unmet need. However, there has been an increasing delay in those six-monthly reports coming out; the most recent one that we have is for January to June 2023, which means that we have now got to the point where there is a 18-month or so delay before those reports are published. That makes it quite hard to scrutinise the implementation of the policy.

There is some really useful data in those reports. For example, the most recent one, from the first half of 2023, shows that twice as many girls are accessing counselling in school as boys. I would suggest that girls do not have twice the mental health issues that boys have and that there are other underlying factors that it would be worth our looking into.

If the cabinet secretary or her officials have the information to hand, that would be great, but given how specific my question is, I am not expecting that to be the case. Will the cabinet secretary look into why those reports have become so increasingly delayed that there is now an 18-month delay in the publication of the next one—at least, I hope that it is 18 months, as that would mean that the next one will be published soon—and look at whether we could significantly cut down that delay to ensure that we get more timely information, so that we can start to analyse the situation and look at what the barriers to access are?

I entirely agree with that point. I would like to ask about some other issues, including school psychologists, but I am conscious of the time. I am happy to come back to those at the end of the meeting if there is time.

That is great. I appreciate that.

I would like to stick with the property questions. Professor Mathieson, you have mentioned that there is an assessment of the university’s property portfolio going on. Could you give us a bit of detail on that? Given that there is significant distress among your workforce at the moment about the potential redundancies, it would be useful to know how the assessment of the property portfolio fits in with wider cost-saving measures. Are you expecting a report to go to the university court some time soon with an assessment of the portfolio and what assets might be disposed of? Could you give us a little bit more detail on how that aspect of it is being assessed?

No, but it can be a piece of the puzzle. There is no single solution. Actually, the single solution to solving your problem in one go would be to make a vast number of your staff redundant, but I suggest that would have significant negative consequences. Given that, and given my suggestion that no stone should be left unturned, are you making an assessment of all your assets, not just your property portfolio?

Is that an active consideration?

My next point is not unrelated to the point that you have made about maintenance. The capital depreciation figure in your accounts seems to have gone up significantly in recent years. Obviously, the increase will not be even, year on year, given the nature of capital budgets, full stop, as well as the factors that are involved in depreciation in particular. However, the figure seems to have risen significantly. In three years, it goes from £60 million to £117 million—that is the projection for the year after next—so it is nearly doubling. Do you have any detail on why the depreciation figure appears to be rising consistently and quite rapidly?