 Good morning and welcome to the first meeting of the Education, Children and Young People 2022. This is a virtual meeting. The first item on our agenda today is an evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, part of our scrutiny of the Scottish Government budget for 2022-2023. I warmly welcome Shirley-Anne Somerville MSP, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, her officials, Graham Logan, director of learning and analysis and coming, and the director of early learning and childcare for the Scottish Government. I welcome all three of you to our meeting. As is our custom, I would like to invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement and then we will move on to questions. I want to take a few minutes just to make a short opening statement and then, of course, very happy to take the committee's questions. Budget, as the committee will know, was introduced on 9 December. At that time, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Economy made clear that the budget cannot deliver the resources that all of our partners want. There are areas in Government in which she and the Government as a whole would have wished to go further. However, without Covid funding, our day-to-day funding for 2022-2023 is significantly less this year. The Scottish Government budget next year will be 2.6 per cent lower than in 2021-22, and after accounting for inflation, that reduction is 5.2 per cent. At a time when we undeniably need to invest in the economy and help public services recover and despite the very real on-going impacts of the pandemic. However, we have allocated our resources in the best way that we can seeking to deliver on key priorities. Turning to the education and skills portfolio, our priority is to ensure that all children and young people, whatever their background, grow up love, safe and respected so that they reach their full potential. The overall portfolio budget has increased from £2,814.9 million in 2021-22 to £2,927.1 million in 2022-23—four per cent in cash terms. The budget includes a record increased investment in teacher recruitment, biggest increase to support teacher recruitment since 2007. We are providing funding for £145.5 million for teachers and classroom assistants, enough to employ 2,500 teachers and 500 support staff. That enables local authorities to employ permanently additional staff recruited through the pandemic. We are also delivering additional teacher training places, providing an additional £2.5 million for that. We have provided £200 million for the Scottish attainment challenge, part of our commitment to provide £1 billion over the Parliament to tackle the poverty-related attainment gap and achieve the best possible outcomes for all our children and young people. We are providing funding to reduce the cost of the school day, removing barriers to children and low incomes. That includes £11.8 million to maintain the school clothing grant at the increased levels introduced in August 2021, £12 million to local government to continue to remove the charges for instrumental music tuition and £8 million to local government to continue the removal of charges that are sometimes associated with core elements of the curriculum, such as art or home economics. We have allocated more than £72 million for the continued expansion of free school meals. That provides lunchease for all children in primaries 1 to 5 and in special schools and supports the infrastructure that is required to roll out lunchease to all primary school children. We will invest £22 million to provide meals during school holidays to the children who need it most. Funding is also being provided to maintain the subsidy arrangements for the provision of milk. My officials will be working with partners to develop a phased approach to the delivery of a universal milk system aligned to the expansion of free school meals. £15 million in this budget supports the development of the infrastructure that is required to provide a device to every school-aged child. We have provided a further £5 million to tackle digital inclusion in colleges, universities and the community learning and development sectors. The budget includes £544 million for the delivery of free, funded early learning and childcare for three and four-year-olds and for two-year-olds from lower-income households. We are also investing £10 million in holiday childcare for lower-income families and £3 million in early phasing of wraparand childcare. We are providing a further £5 million to the new play parks in Scotland as part of the £60 million programme of the course of this Parliament to ensure that children have access to high-quality outdoor play. As part of our commitment to keep the promise an initial, £50 million has been provided to establish a whole family wellbeing fund that will provide person-centred holistic support for children and families. The budget for this next year maintains college resource funding at £675.7 million. Capital funding for colleges has increased by £41 million. Universities resource funding has increased by £21 million to £789.2 million to meet the cost for on-going support for the additional places previously added for those affected by the SQA alternative certification model. Scotland has a model imperative to address the wrongs of the past, recognising that nothing can ever make up for the suffering of survivors of historic child abuse have endured. The £41 million has been provided to make payments under the statutory redress scheme in 2022-23, an increase of £31 million from this year. Improving the life chances of our children, young people and our learners of all ages through excellence and equity in education continues to be a key priority for this Government and for this portfolio to deliver on. I am, of course, happy to take questions from the committee this morning, convener. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Thank you for your opening statement. You will recall that we wrote to use a committee on the 10th of November on pre-budget scrutiny. Basically, the committee agreed, having heard the evidence, that setting outcomes and clearly explaining how success will be measured is critical to assessing the effectiveness of any intervention. The committee is therefore always keen to find out more information on outcomes from the Government. Are you aligned to the reasoning of the committee around measuring outcomes rather than inputs measuring the outputs that come from the expense that you have just described? That is a very important point, convener. I will be very interested as the session develops to hear more from the committee on that. Perhaps I will give a couple of examples of what we are moving forward on this. One, of course, is the national improvement framework, in which we are determined to ensure that the spending within the education and skills portfolio directly has an impact on the national improvement framework and the work from it. That is all about improving outcomes for children and young people. The latest version of that was published in December of this year. That is one example of the type of work that we are doing. The other area that I would point to is the work on the Scottish attainment challenge. We recognise that that billion-pound worth of expenditure that is coming in during this parliamentary session is integral to the fact that we know that the money is being spent in the most effective fashion. That is exactly why part of the announcement that I made to Parliament on that was the work that we will do with local authorities around stretch aims, so that we know what the money is being spent on and, importantly, what schools and local authorities think that that will deliver. Once we have that information working very closely with local authorities, Education Scotland can ensure that they are therefore supporting local authorities to be able to deliver those outcomes. We can, of course, see what is happening against those outcomes. I give those two examples, convener, because I think that it is a very fair point that the committee raises and something that I am very keen to see what we can do further work on. It is not just something that the committee has plucked out of the air, as you will appreciate, cabinet secretary. Audit Scotland has been very direct in its recommendations to the Government, not just in this area of public policy but in many other public areas of public policy, that it is very important that we set out in advance what we expect to have happened in beneficial terms because of the money that is committed on behalf of the Scottish taxpayer. I take it that you agree with that. Yes, I do. Again, the aspects around the attainment challenge funding are specifically in relation to some of the responses from Audit Scotland in the work that they looked at from the first phase of it, so they absolutely took that on board. I will listen very carefully to that as we went through the refresh of stack point 2. Right, thank you for that. You tweeted on 18 August last year, £80 million of Covid recovery funding to be made permanent, allowing councils to offer further permanent contracts to teachers. That is in addition to the £65.5 million funding that was announced last week for 1,000 additional teachers as part of our 100 days commitment. On the basis that just a few days before that tweet, who gave me an answer to a parliamentary question that confirmed that 12 per cent of all of Scotland's teachers were on temporary contracts? Can I begin by asking you then on the basis of your tweet and other comments that have been made in Parliament and elsewhere, do you know how many teachers are on temporary contracts as of today? Well, those figures are updated regularly but not on a real-time basis. What we do know, for example, from the teachers census is that we have 2,000 additional teachers overall. That is an important recognition of the funding that is going in. What we still need to see, and it is not showing up in the teachers census yet because of the timing of when that census is done, is the move from temporary to permanent contracts. That is something that we will see moving forward in future figures that come out from the teachers census. Certainly, the clear direction from Government and encouragement from Government is that the funding is now being made permanent. We were hearing from local authorities that one of the reasons why the number of teachers on temporary contracts was as high as it was was because of a temporary funding. We have now taken that challenge away from local authorities. They are the recruiters of teachers, not national government, but we will be able to encourage local authorities to ensure that they are changing those temporary contracts to permanent contracts now that the funding is in, but that will not show up in the latest teachers census just because of the timing. Are you saying that you do not know whether or not that money has been used thus far to make temporary contracts permanent contracts? Is that what I think you are saying? It is a bit early to be able to determine the impact that that has made, but we are keeping a very close eye on that. When the figures have been updated through teacher census, we will be able to determine that that is happening. Certainly, that is the clear wish that has come from Government and the encouragement that has come from Government. I think that, to be fair, local authorities are picking up on that, but the figures for that will not show up until the next teacher census. In the earlier evidence session, I asked the cause of this question, as well as one of the teaching unions, and they were equally unsure about what is happening to that money. Let me ask you a different question. In the spirit of what I started out to talk about this morning about outcomes, what would success look like in terms of an outcome for you as the Cabinet Secretary for Education in terms of the spending of that additional £80 million? What is success going to look like? What is the number of temporary contracts? As a percentage of the total teaching faculty of the country, what should that look like when we get the result that you are looking towards? What we have made a commitment to is that funding can allow local authorities to be able to deliver on permanent contracts. For example, we know to an approximate level how many teachers that will be able to recruit. For example, the £145.5 million that is in the budget is enough to employ 2,500 teachers and 500 support staff. What we will be looking at is the change in numbers of staff, given how much we know that that money will be able to pay for. Now, some local authorities may choose to spend more on parent support staff rather than permanent teachers. That is a local choice that they will be able to take depending on what they think is right for their area. There may be some change to that, given local circumstances. However, we are certainly analysing it on the basis of how much money is going in, and how much funding should be able to provide teachers and support staff and will measure on that basis. Can I press you on that? Again, that is all good, but what numbers are we looking at? What percentage are you looking at? Currently, 12 per cent at 1 in 8 of all Scotland's teachers. What is the success that you are looking for in terms of a reduction—I presume that we agree that we want a reduction in that number? How far down can you get that number for the £80 million? You are certainly frozen on my screen. I do not know whether the problem is at my end or at committee's end. I do not have anyone else on the committee who can hear me, but I certainly have lost the convener. He seems to have frozen, as far as I can see. In the absence of the convener, as the vice convener, I will take over a good morning early and some of all. If you could continue with your answer there. Certainly. As I was trying to put to the convener, we have more teachers now than we have since 2008. We have seen that addition in the teacher census that has come out. We know how much funding we have put in, which is £145.5 million. We know how many teachers that should employ. For example, I said that there are 2,500 teachers who support staff. That is what I am looking for to see a change in. Now, as I did reiterate to the convener, there may be changes to that because local authorities may decide to vary between teachers and support staff. We cannot put an exact figure on it because we are not dictating to local authorities how that money should be spent. I think that, quite rightly, it is up to local authorities to determine local needs. Certainly, that is the aspect that I am looking on. I know the funding that has come in. That went in. I know what that funding can be able to produce. We will be keeping a close eye on the figures to ensure that that is what that funding delivers. You referred to the teacher's census. Do we have an idea of when the next teacher's census will be coming out at all so that we can compare the figures in between the last census and the next one? That gives us tangible results. I also wanted to refer—I remember when I was teaching—that there are a certain percentage of teachers who prefer to remain on temporary contracts for one reason or another. It is important to put that on record that not every single teacher will want to be on a permanent contract. I also wanted to ask about supply teachers. That has been mentioned to me a few times within the profession, especially regarding support of staff absences and things that, inevitably, with the Covid context, we are dealing with. Any comments around the use of supply teachers would be helpful. In relation to the census, it is annual and it comes out in December. We have not long had that. What we have to do in the interim period is rely on our course-on going discussions with local authorities on those matters, but the official teacher's census is published every December for that. We will monitor that very closely in the interim with local authorities, but that will not be official statistics until that point. The issue of supply staff is key. It ties into the point that you make around the fact that, although teachers who are on temporary contracts wish to be on permanent employment, and that is what we want to see as a Government, that is why I have made that funding available, there are some people who wish to be on a temporary contract and want to work in that way. We will never change that entirely because some of the workforce wants to be flexible. What is key is that we can do everything that we can to encourage permanent contracts with local authorities where at all possible. However, the number of supply staff, of course, is exceptionally important to allow for a flexible look for, particularly at this time. We have, as I should say, to committee, to be aware that earlier on in the pandemic, we put a call out via the General Teaching Council for Scotland for retired teachers, if they wanted to, to come back into the profession for some time. The uptake on that, I have to say, was exceptionally low. A very small number came forward from that and I understand that that has been similar in other countries, which have tried that type of method of approach as well. However, it is something that we are looking to do again to see whether any difference can be made. At the outset, I would again expect the numbers on that to be low, as with other countries, but we certainly think that it is something that should be approached. I will bring in Bob Doris on the issue of a brief supplementary. Previously, I explored the question that Mr Kerr had been exploring in previous sessions with COSLA. For clarity, the additional monies that are now baselined into the next year's budget are ring-fenced. If it is not contradictory, it is ring-fenced with a degree of flexibility, so there must be a decrease of permanent contracts. However, the balance between classroom assistants and teachers is up to each local authority to decide what best meets local needs, and that I would get. However, whether it is the teacher said otherwise, what is the reporting exercise on that? If we increase the amount of teachers, that could involve not a significant fall in the amount of temporary teachers, because temporary teachers could be converted to permanent posts and new teachers could come in for specific projects on a temporary basis, and that would not tell the whole story. Are we going to get a consistent reporting exercise across 32 local authorities to better understand what is happening with teachers and classroom assistants in Scotland if the teacher's senses can do that great, but if it cannot, can the Scottish Government do something else so that our committee can look in a few months' time to see what progress there has been with our on-going budget scrutiny? It is something that the teacher's senses can look at, but I am very conscious that, just as the Government is looking to ensure that the money delivers over this year, the committee will have a key interest in that as well. We do not dictate to local authorities how that money should be spent, because I think that it is very important that local authorities are the recruiters of educational staff. They will be able to determine what is best in their local area, so we are not providing the funding on the basis of a certain percentage of teachers and support staff. That would be the wrong message to send out to local authorities. We are very keen to ensure that that is delivered locally by them. The one thing that I would say is that we have to be very careful not to overburden local authorities on reporting for that, but we keep very close contact with councils and with COSLA right across the year to be able to determine what is happening. Numbers are very fluid. They will change depending on what is happening on a week-to-week basis within local authorities, so that is not a static exercise, but it is something that we will ensure that we will continue to keep a close eye on. We will keep the committee updated in any way that I can on that. I believe that the convener is now back online, so I would like to hand back over to the convener. The co-cap, thank you so much for stepping in. I apologise to everybody, my computer has decided to shut down. Suddenly just shut down, but there we go. Maybe he didn't like my line of questioning, I don't know, but that's what happened. Cabinet Secretary, if I may ask you a couple of other quick questions, with some quick responses from myself, it's absolutely fine to be brief. How would you rate teacher morale in schools today? I think that this has been shown very recently in, for example, the EIS survey, which came out that this has been an exceptionally difficult time for not just teachers but other staff within our schools as well. This is a very difficult time for everyone as we go through the pandemic, but the ability for teachers to have to adapt very quickly to what has been happening has been exceptionally difficult, and I would absolutely pay credit to them. That's why we've taken teacher well-being very seriously during this. We've invested money in this in the past two million pound, and we'll continue to make sure that there's support from Education Scotland from them, because we do recognise that it's a very difficult time for teachers. You are concerned about teacher morale, clearly, and teacher well-being. I'm always concerned about teacher well-being, but particularly during a pandemic, there is a responsibility on government to be able to take that seriously. And teacher morale as well. The Scottish Government created, put in place a scheme, a partnership with Place to be in September, to support teachers' mental health. What's been the uptake of that scheme and how would you rate the performance so far? And what do you expect it to deliver in terms of an outcome? I don't have the figures for the uptake on that, but I'm happy to provide that to committee. Certainly the material that I've seen that's came back in terms of feedback has been that it's been widely welcomed and that teachers have found those types of schemes useful. There's been a number of aspects that Education Scotland have also delivered around teacher well-being, and that's very, very important that we look at those things in the round on those aspects, but certainly the feedback that I've had is that they have been well received, well used, but the figures, the exact figures, I don't have the hand and we can supply to the committee. If you can bring us up to speed on the uptake on that, that would be very useful. And just very quickly, you said, and maybe other colleagues will pick this up later, but you said in the chamber in December that the reduction of contact hours, chalk face, some people call it, hours by 90 minutes would happen in the next academic year, that's from this August. How is that going? What's been the outcome of your negotiations with the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers, and do you expect to be able to realise this very important, in the light of the OECD, study in particular this very important target that you have created for yourself? Well, that's certainly what we would like to be able to deliver, and I think it's important that government sets itself a very, very challenging target because we want to be able to deliver that. Now, this isn't something which government can deliver, it's something for the SNCT to look at. We need to look at the planning and the modelling for that, so if we were to go ahead, as government would wish in August, what does that mean? Can it be delivered? We may have to move forward, for example, on a phased basis. Would that be something that would perhaps assist the system easier? We would certainly be keen to move forward with it from August from a government perspective, but of course what we need to absolutely look at is the planning and the modelling to see whether that is feasible right across the education system, so that's an easy thing to work on. You're right. It's an aspiration more than a commitment then, yeah? Well, it's not for the Scottish Government to be able to deliver on. We need to work with local authorities and the Chez Unions, so we would like to move forward with as quickly as so would the Chez Unions, for example, but our wish to be able to deliver on that has to come on to the brass tacks of the planning and the modelling about whether it can be achieved, so we're certainly pushing towards that that will have, for example, very different implications for different local authorities, different sizes of schools, whether it's primary, secondary, for example, so looking at all those very, very fine details, we need to get into that. I think that people will be concerned by the response that you've given to my last couple of questions on contact time, because your words in the chamber on the 14th of December were very clear. Our commitment to reduce class contact time for teachers by eight minutes per week was a commitment. You're making a commitment and it seems to me now that it's sound like you're stepping back from the commitment and it's now, well, it's someone else that's going to have to deliver it. That's how it's coming across to me. Is that how you mean to come across? We are committed to driving this forward. The Government would like to see this happen in August, but the Government can't make it happen. From the Government's perspective, we are absolutely committed to doing everything that we can from our side to be able to make this happen, but it's not just up to Government. We absolutely have the willingness of Government to do that. I know that partners will be looking at this very carefully, too, in local authorities and trade unions. There is a willingness to make this happen. There is an absolute commitment from Government to be able to do everything that we can to make it happen, but we do, of course, have to look at the very fine detail of how we make that happen in every single school. We are looking at the different sizes and the different sizes of local authorities, but we will start by then if we at all possibly can. All the costs to the reduction of contact time will be met by the Scottish Government? Yes. In many ways, one of our determinations to drive forward teacher numbers so quickly is to ensure that we can move forward with a class contact time. I thank you so much for answering my questions. I think that I have taken more than the time that I should have, because of all the high joints with the tech, but I am going to turn to my deputy convener and colleague, Kocab. Do you wish to come back in, Kocab Stewart? Thank you, convener. Although you were offline, I was able to ask my questions also on teacher recruitment and numbers. If it is okay with everyone, I can just move on to my line of questioning. The previous thread, I can pick up on that quite nicely. On policy agendas and commitments and priorities being set at government level, the responsibility of delivering that lies at local government level. With the responsibility that local governments have, there is a balance to be considered regarding having ring-fenced money for its specifics and discretionary funding. I would like to explore the strengths and weaknesses of each method of distribution and how the Government has assessed the strengths and weaknesses of either ring-fencing but also providing discretionary funding. I suppose that the key strength of providing specific funding for specific purposes is to ensure that all the money that is being provided for that particular purpose will go to that particular purpose. One of the examples of that, I would point to, would be the expansion to the 1140 hours for early learning and childcare. There have been shared priorities between Scottish Government and local government for those types of projects. It has allowed the Scottish Government to be able to move forward with that commitment to provide that via local authorities. I appreciate that the ring-fenced funding does reduce local authority discretion in some of those areas, but it is worth noting that, although ring-fenced funding is for increased investment in services such as schools and nurseries, 93 per cent of the funding that we will provide is not formally ring-fenced from that. We recognise that there is a call from local government to move to less ring funding. I understand that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance has committed to reviewing all ring-fenced funding as part of the resource spending review, and we will continue our constructive engagement with local government as part of that through our education areas that are ring-fenced. I take your point about the fact that ring-fenced money allows a specific route to ensure policy delivery from a government level. However, we are all aware that local needs and priorities can vary across the country within local authorities. I have had several questions put to me about the consistency of delivery across all local authorities. Is there a role? I would imagine that there is a pretty strong role of government in ensuring that consistency across all local authorities across Scotland. What is the role of government in ensuring that consistency? Has there been any work done on monitoring and assessing the consistency of delivery? I think that you raise an important point in those areas. As we have funding that 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 keep a close regard for the variation that happens within education. That is variation of outcomes. It is the variation of outcomes that should be a shared concern for all of us. The variation of how things are done in an educational basis is absolutely to be encouraged because we should not have a one-size-fits-all policy coming from Edinburgh, but a variation in outcomes for children is something that we are determined to look at. I would point to some of the key aspects within the Scottish attainment challenge funding that I raised with the convener earlier that we are determined to move forward with that look specifically at variation. Another area is, of course, outcome frameworks for what we expect for those programmes. For 1140 hours, there is outcome frameworks so that there is an understanding of what is delivered for the funding that goes in. Both for ring-fenced funding in terms of outcome frameworks, but also just an awareness of what is happening with the funding that leaves national government and goes to local government so that we know what the outcomes of that funding are. That is important not just for the Scottish Government but for local authorities as well. I turn now to Ross Greer. I would like to stick with the previous line of questioning around teacher recruitment and teacher numbers. The £145 million that was announced as part of the budget that the cabinet secretary mentioned in her opening statement is the largest single increase for teacher recruitment since 2007, but I would like to drill down into the detail of that subsequent to the publication of the budget. That number was subject to some negotiation with COSLA, as is normal—they would be the ones deploying the fund. My understanding is that the £145 million breaks down by 32 local authorities, but it is broken down into five funding streams. The five that I have listed are funding for teachers, primary teaching staff, secondary teaching staff, special schools and teacher pay. I was just wondering if the cabinet secretary could, in the first instance, explain to me what the distinction is between funding for teachers and the three streams broken down by primary, secondary and special schools. It appears that the funding for teachers is the largest single amount, so I think that Aberdeen City is the first on the list that I can see. There is £2.6 million for Aberdeen City funding for teachers, but there are £800,000 primary teaching staff, £900,000 secondary teaching staff and £240 special schools. What are those three additional columns, or are they separate to the funding for teachers stream? You raise an important point about how the money goes out to local authorities and the discretion for local authorities to be able to move that forward. Yes, the money will go from Scottish Government to the local government to allow them to make the decisions that they are wishing to make within the funding streams that we put out. I do not know whether Alison or Graham may wish to come in on that to describe some more of the detail on it. Yes, clearly there is some discretion for local government, because we want them to use the funding for additional teachers to meet their needs locally. For example, in terms of additional support for learning, given that the figures on pupils with additional support needs, every teacher now is supporting children with additional support needs in mainstream. We really want to provide as much flexibility across primary, secondary and special to meet local needs, and that can be challenging in different geographical areas, where there might be different shortages in particular subjects or specialisms, but there is a lot of flexibility there in terms of how the funding is used to employ the teachers that are needed locally. Also, in our workforce planning, we look at this quite carefully so that, for example, we do not end up with too many primary teachers and not enough of other types of teachers as well. That was a useful clarification of the purpose of those additional three comments. In that case, I have one other technical question around the fifth part of this stream, which is teacher pay. I will use Aberdeen City as an example, because it is the first on the spreadsheet that I can see. There are 200 grand allocated for teacher pay as part of Aberdeen City's allocation of the overall £145 million. What exactly does that mean by teacher pay? I am presuming that the overwhelming majority of what the money and the other four columns will be spent on is teacher pay. There is a small amount that will go on the admin, payroll and so on, but the £145 million is overwhelming and will be spent on paying additional teachers. What is the purpose of that specific allocation within that of teacher pay? There is not a specific allocation within the overall Scottish Government's budget for teachers pay, because, as I must agree, it rightly points out that the teacher recruitment is, in effect, the teacher pay. That is what it goes on. The committee will, of course, be aware that we are still going through a process of seeking an agreement on teachers pay for this financial year. The committee will be aware that an offer was made by COSLA, which is currently with trade union members, for discussion and decision on. With the committees for berns, I am not going to say too much on the current teachers pay, because, clearly, we are still in the middle of a process, but what I will say is that that process has gone on for an exceptionally long time. I completely appreciate that teachers are very frustrated about how long that is taking, but we need to come to an agreement on the teacher's pay and that will need to work its way through the SNCT as per the usual process on that. Certainly, the Scottish Government stands by to make any changes it can to allow that to move forward, but, clearly, the Government has already put in additional funding to the overall local government settlement, which assisted with the wider local government workforce on this. That is a demonstration of how we have played our part in moving things forward. It is now a position that must, on its course, be through the SNCT. I have just one final question on this issue. You have just been in discussion with the convener around the Government's commitment to reducing teacher contact time, etc. What is the relationship between additional funding for teacher recruitment and the objective of reducing class contact time and getting that better balance for the workload of the existing teaching workforce? Clearly, teacher recruitment is absolutely integral to the opportunity for the partners to be able to move forward with the reduction in class contact time. That is exactly why the Government has invested so heavily in that. We are aware that there are practical challenges of bringing that in, and we are aware that schools continue to be under pressure because of dealing with Covid currently. We know that there is a lot of pressure on the system, but we know that one of the ways that we can assist with that, if we at all possibly can, is a reduction in class contact time for teachers to be able to come back to another point that we discussed earlier, which was around staff welfare. I think that I have probably taken up enough time, convener. I will be keen to come back in later on on the course of Covid, but there will be other members wishing to come in before you come back to me, I am sure. Thank you, Ross Greer. Yes, absolutely. I will try to get you back in when you indicate. I turn now to Stephanie Cowan. Thank you, convener. A couple of different questions. One is around free school meals and another is around quality data. Free school meals are delighted with the £32 million investment in the £22 million for school holiday clubs, although it is a bit concerning to hear that there is an expected 5.2 per cent real terms reduction next year. I trust that those things will be prioritised. Just looking at the school holiday money, we know that part of the thing behind free school meals for primary children is the fact that it increases uptake amongst the most vulnerable children that reduces the stigma there. As a point of clarity, I know that North and South Lanarkshire Council has approached that differently. North Lanarkshire Council is only doing the holiday lunchtime clubs for the children who currently get free school meals, whereas South Lanarkshire Councils are open to everyone, so it was really just for a bit of clarity around the funding for the school holidays. Is that expected to cover all children or is it very specifically about vulnerable children? The aspects around the funding and, in general, the support that we can provide to young people during the school holidays has been an important development as we have approached Covid and something that we are keen to move further with as we eventually see the back of Covid. The entitlement is for those with free school meals and is targeted, but that is a minimum. We know that some local authorities will have gone and will go further on that. We can ensure that we are delivering a project that works for families on low incomes to be able to reach out to a diverse range of children, particularly looking at children with disabilities, additional support needs, children from BME backgrounds and so on. There is focus and target on free school meals. We are very conscious of not looking at that as one group, but what can be done within that funding to make sure that we are supporting children and young people from different backgrounds to ensure that that is going as wide as it can within that entitlement? It would certainly be quite interesting to see if a bit of work could be undertaken to look at the local authorities that have gone a bit further and whether or not there is a hugely increased demand there. I will move on to my second question. It is good to see in your letter responding to a convener's letter about respecting the need for a stronger national local data across all the four capacities for curriculum for excellence. There will be the short-life subgroup of the curriculum and assessment board to explore the options for a sample-based survey. It is really interesting to see the quality of data, because that is something that is often coming up across lots of the different strands that we are looking at there. I was wondering if you are able to expand on that any more or say something about the idea that you know that that will run a bit wider than just looking at the curriculum for excellence stuff just now. We are keen to make sure that we are gathering the correct data. In many ways, that points back to some of the initial points that the convener was making at the start about making sure that we are gathering the correct data so that we know what the outcomes are from the educational spend that goes in. The short-life working group that we have is in response to the OECD recommendations that came out, which very much said that we needed to see what more can be done to look at the other three capacities within curriculum for excellence, which we do not currently have the same level of data at. Of course, we have a wide range of other surveys, which paint a picture of young people's progress, the health and wellbeing survey, being one of those. I am sure that that is something that the committee will come back to at some point in the future. I will be happy to provide the committee with an update on the work that is happening around data, the short-life working group and where that is going once we have reached a point where decisions recommendations have been made from that. I am just around the idea of the wider focus on the qualitative data as well. In education, is that something that you are going to be looking at? We have a wide range of surveys that go out. The health and wellbeing survey is one of those. We are keen to look at the data that we look at in general to make sure that it is providing the information that we think that we require. That is why we have a short-life working group to look at those aspects. We have also got, for example, the growing up in Scotland survey, which looks at some of the types of data that the member is speaking about. I hope that that gives a reassurance that we are keen to ensure that we are gathering the right data and the right way to be able to determine the impacts that other policies and society in general are having on children. That is great. That is really helpful. Useful to follow on some of the issues of data, cabinet secretary. The only data that we have so far regarding the impact of the pandemic on attainment or school achievement is the deeply concerning figures that came out regarding the primary school levels, attainment at its lowest level, the gap between the poorest of kids and the rest at the highest level. Those are concerns that you would share, aren't they? Exceptionaly concerning. As I said at the time, that is something that we are seeing right across the UK and, indeed, further afield as we see the impact of Covid, but they are a concerning set of statistics. When did you have sight of those results? They were published on 14 December. Am I right to assume that they were trailed in little snippets and different speeches and announcements that you were expecting the data to be very concerning for us all? When did you have sight of those results? Very close to publication given their official statistics, but I do not think that it took me to see the statistics to know that they were going to be poor. I think that the fact that we had the equity audit many, many months before that, we were pointing in the direction of travel that those were going to be bad statistics. Given their official statistics, they would have went through the process of me not seeing them until very close to publication, but I do not really need to wait for the statistics to know the direction of travel that we are going to go in. I think that there is a broad logic to that. You have mentioned, obviously, the international experience of that and the lost learning that has taken place. I can understand that. The budget was published on 9 December. Could you tell us, given the long-term concern that you had, in some detail what representations you made to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to deal with that impact? Deal with the impact of attainment on what had happened in our schools, the absence of learning? What were the resources that you were asking for, the initiatives that you were putting in place? What was the argument that you were making to colleagues to make sure that we could deal with that impact? Clarelly, we had set out the direction of travel and the Covid recovery before the budget came out. We recognised that there was going to be a very big challenge in this area. That is exactly why we made the commitment to the £1 billion for the Scottish attainment challenge funding. That is why the commitment was made pre-budget to make permanent and, therefore, baseline the funding for teacher recruitment. Given that we knew that there was going to be a difficult time for children and young people, what we put in train in terms of Covid recovery for the money for the Scottish attainment challenge funding and teacher recruitment is the way in which that was dealt with. Obviously, that was funded through the budget process. That is, of course, on top of the £500 million for Covid response and recovery that we had already put in place as the pandemic had begun. The sight or the emerging evidence of the scale of that impact did not really make much difference in terms of the approach that you had taken. The Covid recovery plan, as has been well recognised by colleagues and trade unions, is a repackaging of previous announcements, the payment challenge funding and the £20 million cut on that. However, the same amounts of money across each number of years require something of a different proportion to what you were doing three years ago. What we put in is an increase in the Scottish attainment challenge funding from £750 million in the previous Parliament to £1 billion. If I can say it only because this is an extra year, it is spread across another year. There is no more money per year than it was in the previous Parliament. It is a substantial investment into children's education to have no more money per year expenditure on it. What was in last year's budget, or this financial year's budget, was a £20 million Covid premium. However, given the fact that the Scottish Government overall has not seen any Covid consequentials coming to it this year, it has been exceptionally difficult to move forward with further progress on that in terms of specific Covid premiums. What we have seen—again, I pointed to that in my opening remarks—was the biggest investment for many years in teacher recruitment. That is absolutely a recognition of the challenges that education was and was about to face. That is exactly why we have put in the massive investment that we have into teacher recruitment, because we knew that this was going to be a challenging time. However, the investment that you have already acknowledged in the committee today will take us back to 2008 levels if we can get to that number. It is not even as high as the situation that your Government took on in 2007, but the scale of the challenge that we face now is the highest that we have ever faced. The statistics and very limited statistical evidence so far—I would like to see an awful lot more after saying that we have called for that at a time and again—is a really good focus today on the evidence. However, there is a question that I have about how proportionate your response has been to the scale of the challenge. It does not seem to me that, in those discussions with the cabinet secretary, you have managed to make or win the argument for more resource or for a disproportionate response to the scale of the challenge. Would that be fair? A repetition of previous plans does not really take into account the scale of the challenge that we face. I do not think that it would be fair to say that the level of funding that we are putting into teacher recruitment, which is the biggest increase in funding to support teacher recruitment since 2007, is a rehash of what we were doing already. That is a substantial investment and change from last year, but I would point to the fact that— You are only making good on the cuts that you have made since 2007. There is no overall increase in teacher numbers, even if we get to that more welcome position. I do welcome that funding and that is getting back to that position, but those are cuts that your Government have made. What we have seen in the last teacher census is an additional 2,000 teachers. We have, of course, got the commitment that we will deliver on and are delivering on to provide 3,500 additional teachers, 500 support staff, over this parliamentary term. I would point to the fact that a recent institute of fiscal studies report highlighted that, for the past 13 years, Scotland has had the highest spend per pupil of the four UK nations, and that we now have a pupil-teacher ratio at its best level since 2009. We are at a stage in which we have put significant investment in, both to deal with the challenges of the pandemic of the £0.5 billion expenditure, which I mentioned earlier, and the work that we are doing on attainment funding, and the work that we are doing on teacher recruitment and in other areas that shows our determination to take that very seriously. I can just close on this area with a question about the evidence, if that is okay. Those statistics, as we have acknowledged, are very concerning for all of us, exceptionally concerning in your own words. I think that it is really important that we get more evidence about the impact of the pandemic. Can you tell us what research you might have commissioned to inform your policy and your decisions about recovery and education, particularly in relation to secondary schools, which you will acknowledge that there has been a perhaps, in your view, an understandable gap in terms of the lack of data? What else can the committee expect to see and have made available to us about the impact of the pandemic in terms of structural research? Of course, we have had the equity audit that the Government published. We have had exceptionally regular discussions at CERG, the education and recovery group, to look at that. I would point to the national improvement framework report in December, which included evidence as well. Clearly, there were some gaps in what could be collated as part of the NIF because of the impact of Covid, but that is certainly one of the key areas where we will also be able to see the impact of it. We keep on regular discussions as well on an international basis with our council of education advisers to be able to learn what we can from that. I have regular contact with my teacher's panel and the Scottish Education Council to ensure that there is an interim period between official statistics being delivered or NIFs being published and that we are in regular discussions with stakeholders about the impact on those issues. Nothing new has been commissioned to make good on that gap, particularly in secondary school? No. The reason that the material was not collated as part of the NIF was that it was not possible to be able to do that during the period when we had Covid. I think that we need to look at what schools can publish given the implications of Covid for them. I hope that the committee would appreciate that there were understandable reasons why some of the material could not be delivered, where we again have the material that is being looked at from our stakeholders for that, and the material that comes from the SQA in secondary schools. I am turning now to James Dornan. I would like to ask you a wee bit about the multi-year funding for further and higher education. I am looking forward to it, as I am sure that most education stakeholders are to the announcement that you will make in May on the multi-year funding plans. However, how can you assure that those packages, whatever they may be, will support the colleges and universities in addressing the long-term financial sustainability challenges, such as rising staff and pension costs? We have looked very carefully at the calls from further and higher education for multi-year funding packages. I am very sympathetic to that on the basis that allows for better planning. That is certainly something that I have the greatest sympathy for them with. Obviously, it has been something that is challenging for Government to do when we do not have a multi-year budget that comes to the Scottish Government. That presents us with challenges on those aspects. That will be taken forward, as you have said, Mr Dornan, as part of the work that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance is looking at in terms of what can be done in terms of further multi-year funding. I point to the Scottish Funding Council review, which highlighted the importance of that. That is something that we are keen to take early action on in terms of the funding council review overall, to see what else can be done to support the sector. On what will happen from now on, we know that there are aspects that Government students intervene on. I point to an example for industrial relations in those sectors. Obviously, universities are autonomous bodies, so that is certainly something that should be left to the sector and universities. With colleges, it is important that the role of colleges and the trade unions is allowed to play out and ensure that there is a positive working relationship with colleges and universities on that. However, the spending review gives us the opportunity to look at the higher and further education sectors and to see how we can assist them in delivering, as they do, not just for young people but for learners of all ages. What is the engagement plan for the colleges and universities in between now and May to establish how we can ensure that funding can be used most effectively? That is where the funding council has an exceptionally important role to play. It will be engaging with the sector to allocate funding to the institutions and, very importantly, to continue to discuss with colleges and universities aspects around long-term financial sustainability, for example, financial forecasts and so on. There is an integral role for the funding council to be able to play in this part as we move to the institutional settlements that will come from this. Clearly, Scottish Government officials and I will keep in close contact with the funding council as they continue to make their decisions on this, particularly as we move to wider discussions on the spending review for future years. Thank you, convener. On a similar line of questioning, I do not doubt the financial challenges that the Scottish Government has set in its budget. Cabinet Secretary, Collegy Scotland would say that it has a 2.6 per cent real terms cut to its revenue budget and that 38 per cent of school leavers in Scotland from SIMD-20 cohorts go to Scotland colleges. Has the Scottish Government had discussions with Collegy Scotland or made any assessment about the impact of what Collegy Scotland tells us that it has a 2.6 per cent real terms cut? I appreciate that the college sector expressed disappointment over the settlement that it has been in. It has been an exceptionally challenging process. I laid some of that out in the first part of my introductory statements. I think that the challenge for government as we have moved through is to be able to deliver a fair settlement that was, obviously, allowing us—as a Government as a whole—to be able to deliver on the multiple priorities that we have. We have supported the college sector and, in the financial year coming forward, its budget has been maintained. I appreciate that that has been a difficult settlement for colleges, but funding council, as I said, to Mr Dornham, will now work closely with the sector in terms of the institutional settlements that will flow from that to see how we can best deliver for the sector. I readily say that that is a very difficult and challenging year. That is helpful, cabinet secretary. That was a very frank and realistic answer on what will be a challenging budget for Scotland's colleges. I would ask how you monitor in the academic year going forward what that impact will be in colleges, because, during the financial year, barlet consequentials become available and other spending can be leveraged in by Government. Scotland's colleges will rightly be looking to see how they can get some respect financially in relation to some of that money that will be leveraged in, if I can give some examples of that. I am not sure whether the £10 million that colleges spend under the young person's guarantee in the last financial year is included in that core budget for colleges that I mentioned was challenging or the £20 million from the flexible workforce development fund, which I believe was spent in colleges in the last financial year. I suppose that what I am trying to get at is that we are looking at a budget that is challenging, but will additional monies be invested in colleges that perhaps we are not seeing in that core budget? What can colleges expect in relation to that going forward, to allow them to plan ahead? Mr Dornan has already spoken about multi-year budgets, which would certainly help with that forward planning, but can the cabinet give any assurances that we are coming back for colleges in what is a specifically financially challenging period? Of course, there are areas of the budgets of different portfolios that impact on education and skills. Yes, Mr Dornan, there are aspects that are in the finance and economy portfolio budgets that will have an impact on the investment of colleges. I would give the young person's guarantee as an example of something that does not sit within my budget portfolio, although the policy responsibility does. We are continuing to work through how the final allocation for the young person's guarantee will be determined and what that will be. However, the overall point around the fact that it is not just the education and skills portfolio that has an impact on colleges is a fair one. Finally, can I ask whether the cabinet secretary— Can I briefly evolve? Yes, for once this will be brief, would it be possible at some point to get the full quantum of spending in colleges reported in one place so that the committee does not have to look at the committee's budget scrutiny and other committee's budget scrutiny so that we can get a global figure for the money spent in colleges in the coming financial year? I am certainly happy to take that away and to see what can be done. It is one of the challenges that we have looked at education. A lot of the education budget sits within the local government budget, and there are other parts of other government portfolios, most obviously, the finance and economy that will impact on particularly the skills area. I am happy to report back to the committee on that and to point in the direction of that spend, if that would be helpful. I think that it is fair to say that Alasdair Sin from University of Scotland and Shona Struthers from College Scotland wrote to the committee in a letter dated 21 December in which they say, and I think that it would be important to get your response to that on the record, because those are clearly two people that are representing their sectors and they are gravely concerned. I will give you some quotes on their letter. The settlement will translate into a real-terms cut to funding for both sectors. The real-terms cut in the 2022-23 budget settlement for further higher education is part—this is quite damning, and I think that it is important to get your response to it—is part of an established overall pattern of a lack of investment in universities and colleges that have put under pressure our students, staff and infrastructure. They are saying that this is an established overall pattern from the Scottish Government. However, the outcome of the 2022-23 budget sends the deeply unfortunate signal that the Scottish Government does not fully recognise the role that colleges and universities play in the critical delivery of education skills and research that absolutely support economic recovery and transformation. In that context, we are very concerned of the prospects for colleges and universities, and the multi-year settlement for finance is expected to deliver in May 2022. I think that it is important that we get your reaction to those very pointed comments on the record. As I said earlier, I appreciate that universities and colleges have expressed their disappointment for the settlement for both sectors. I would point out the fact that that has been a difficult budget for the reasons that I set out in my introductory remarks. We have spent the money that we have allocated this year as a Government. We have had to make difficult choices from that. I absolutely, truly appreciate the role that colleges and universities have played and will continue to play, particularly in our recovery from Covid. The fact that there are no consequentials arising from Covid coming to the Scottish Government has presented the Government with challenges in those areas. We do appreciate that, but we have certainly— The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills says that there is an established overall pattern of a lack of investment. That is not one-year's money, is it? We are allocating nearly £2 billion to Scotland's universities and colleges within the budget. That is a fair settlement in a challenging area. We have provided fair settlements again in the past. I appreciate that there are challenges that have been seen, but I would point out the fact that, for example, between 2007 and 2021, the college sector resource budget has increased by more than 30 per cent in cash terms. I would give that as an example of where we can and we will continue to invest in the college and university sector. We will continue to look at that very closely at the spending review of Scotland. I am sure that the University of Scotland and College Scotland will be anxious to continue their discussion with you on the basis of their concerns and your response, which I am not sure, frankly, will have given them much comfort. I turn to Willie Rennie. I have to say that I am quite surprised by the cabinet secretary's evidence moment. I do not think that she has given any acknowledgement at all to the fact that poor school budgets will be cut by £100 million in this year's settlement. Why should not she be upset and mad about that? Surely, it is her responsibility to stand up for school budgets? I would point to the fact that we have delivered a very strong budget for education and skills. We have seen investments cut by £100 million. Why is there no acknowledgement of that at all? We have seen a very important development in our investment in teachers, for example. However, if Mr Rennie would like to point to that £100 million cut— It is quite simple. The real-terms cut to councils is £268 million. Education is about half of what councils do, so I am being quite cautious about a £100 million cut. There is no reference, no acknowledgement. Why is she not sitting mad about that? Surely she should not be defending this cut to the core school budget. She should be arguing for an increase to it. We have heard from Michael Marra who made some clear points about the challenges that you acknowledged that pupils and teachers are facing in schools, but yet you impose a £100 million cut to the core budget. With the greatest respect to Willie Rennie, I do not recognise or accept the figures that he is using on that. The 2223 local government settlement is £2.5 billion. That is fair in the most challenging of circumstances. The figures that have been pointed to about cuts have been selective and misleading, particularly not taking account of the complete funding that goes in to local government. I point to education. The IFS has calculated that school spending per pupil in Scotland is higher in Scotland than it is in England and that we have provided extra resources to local councils. 2019-20 was the fifth year in a row that local authority education expenditure saw a real-terms increase. With the greatest respect to Mr Rennie, I do not accept the premise of the start of his question. I do not know whether I can pose the question. With respect, your answer is rubbish. We have seen quite clearly from Spice that they have made it clear that there is a £268 million cut to local authority budgets. Education is half of what they do. You have made various promises that you are funding in terms of extra teachers and other things. Of course you should, because they were your election promises and you should fund those, but that does not entitle you to cut £100 million from the core budget. That is not about England, but about Scotland. I do not want the comparisons with elsewhere, because I care about the pupils in Scotland. Why on earth is she not angry about this? I am not angry. I cannot believe that you are cutting budgets at this time, so why are you not angry about it? That is what I do not understand. It is very managerial. With the greatest respect to Mr Rennie, I do not accept the premise of the figures that you are using. I am sure that you will discover that there is a £268 million cut. Counselors, right across the board, including SNP councillors, are spitting mad about the local authority settlement. What I cannot understand is why you are not, when education is a massive part of what local authorities do. Why are you not angry? The settlement that is being provided will deliver a real terms growth in the overall settlement. It has the protection for core budgets in cash terms. It will allow the additional funding to go in for teachers and support staff. It contains the funding for the 100 days commitments, some of which I mentioned in my introductory remarks. It contains the funding for the free school meals settlements also. I would put it to Mr Rennie if he wishes to see more money going into local government or elsewhere. I am sure that he will tell me or perhaps Ms Forbes later on in the budget process where that money should be cut from to allow that to happen. I might have to, because it is quite clear that the cabinet secretary is not going to make any efforts to argue for more funding than for school core budgets. It is your job to stand up for education and you are not making that case. Why on earth are you sitting here today completely accepting that the fact that the cabinet secretary for finance is effectively cutting £100 million from your core budget is undermining the work that you are doing? Why are you not making the case for that? I think that the Government overall has a fair settlement for education and for local government. I would encourage Mr Rennie to put forward costed budget alternatives, whether he would like to take that from health, justice or transport or for our work on net zero. The budget has been set out where that money is going. If Mr Rennie wishes to see more money going in, he has to say where the money will come from given the budget has been spent in its entirety. So, yes, he can demand more action is taken, but he has to suggest where that money will come from if he is not satisfied with the budget proposals that are being forwarded by the Government. The cabinet secretary has followed the script this morning. I think that teachers, councillors, the pupils and the parents will listen to the answers from the cabinet secretary today and they will draw one conclusion that she is not standing up for Scottish education in making the case, because we would not see £100 million cut to core school budgets if she was making the case. I think that I am finished, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Willie Rennie. I am going to ask James Dona, who has a supplementary question to prove to the cabinet secretary. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I will be very brief. Cabinet secretary, you have kind of answered the question that I was going to ask, because the reality is that Mr Kerr, Mr Marr, Mr Rennie have all asked for extra money. Surely, your role is to argue for as much as you can within the budget process within Cabinet, and at that stage then the Scottish Government huff to say, this is the money that we have got, this is how we are going to spend it. If you want to spend it in any other way, please tell us whereabouts from the budget you are going to get that money. There has been no sign of that from any of the three speakers previously. I am asking for a response from the cabinet secretary. I think that this is an unfortunate part of the usual budget process that we go through from many of the Opposition parties where there are demands for additional expenditure not just within my portfolio but in other Government portfolios as well from all Opposition parties where they can absolutely come to committees such as this and demand additional spending per portfolio, none of it then comes into a natural budget alternative where there are serious discussions with the finance secretary about the alternatives to the budget that has been proposed. It is very easy to come forward and demand more money that is spent on something. It is much more difficult to have a budget settlement. I thank the additional investment that will allow in Scotland local authorities and schools to see the additional numbers of teachers provided. I wanted to ask the cabinet secretary about two areas. First, the additional costs of meeting education provision in rural parts of Scotland, especially in the Highland Council area, which, as the cabinet secretary knows, has 29 high schools and 204 schools in all, the largest number in Scotland. Of course, a great number of those, particularly primary schools, have very small roles, which means that per pupil, if you like, the number of teachers that Highland Council must employ will be greater than the average in other urban council areas. In addition to that, the extra transport costs, the hard costs of building work, whether it is new build or repairs, are a recognised fact. The last particular point that I would like to bring to the cabinet secretary's attention is that my information from close discussion with senior officials in the Highland Council is that the level of the extra costs has been exacerbated as a result of restrictions in the construction sector, restricted capacity and lesser competition. I know that the funding formula in local government is trying to reflect rurality, but she is aware that the committee has raised the issue with her already in this section of Parliament. I wonder whether she could perhaps outline for myself and other members representing rural or largely rural constituencies how we can be sure that rural authorities have sufficient resource under the formula and whether she thinks that there is a scope now and a need to revisit the details of the formula to make sure that this important factor of rurality in terms of costs of providing education provision is properly provided for. I recognise that this is an area that Mr Ewing has a very long-standing interest in, given his constituency interests. There are probably two different areas that I would point to on that. One is what we can do from Scottish Government funding outwith the local government settlement to be able to take better account of rurality. I point to the changes that we have made to the Scottish attainment challenge funding, which now will allocate funding for all 32 local authorities, recognising that there is poverty in all areas. As we have looked at how we distribute money, what we have also looked to do is, as has been pointed out by Audit Scotland in the past, SIMD, for example, is not a particularly useful measurement for rural areas. We are keen to look at, for example, the use of free school meals or the children and low-income families data, which again allows us a much better analysis of rurality in different areas. We are challenging ourselves within Government to see how we can change Government funding streams to better take account of that. As you also point to, the local authority funding is agreed by a settlement, which is based on a formula that is agreed with COSLA. I would say that the Government is always open to evidence-based suggestions to improve that funding formula, but I would absolutely want to stress to the committee that fundamental changes to that would, of course, have to properly come through COSLA in the first instance. However, if Mr Ewing has concerns about that, I would be very happy to hear more about that in further detail. The evidence-based approach is the right way to go about that, because we have to work with our partners in local government over the wider aspects that are outwith the controlled justice of the Scottish Government. I hope that that has given us some reassurance about what is in our power and what we have looked to to make sure that rurality is taken account of. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that comprehensive answer and, in particular, the inclusion of the Highland Council and other areas in the attainment funding, because, as he rightly says, poverty is no stranger to several parts of the Highlands and, indeed, in my constituency. I am pleased that that is recognised by the Scottish Government. That is a step forward, and I will relay her comments to senior officials in the Highland Council with whom I will touch later today as it happens. The other area that I wanted to ask the cabinet secretary was how, in our secondary schools, provision is made to assist those pupils who have mental health issues, recognising, of course, that the prime responsibility will rest with the NHS, but I am mindful of the fact that, according to information that I have, from my constituency work, early intervention by specific allocated staff at schools designed to assist teenagers who are undergoing various forms of mental ill health can play a really important part. After all, many adolescents and many teenagers are slow to trust people and to take advice to build up a relationship with someone in whom they have confidence to help them through difficulties, which may include Asperger's autism, anorexia, self-harm and other very, very serious matters where some adolescents really have problems. Just recently, I have had a harrowing constituency case, the details of which I will not go into here, but I do feel that this is a provision that is available in some of the schools in my constituency. I would stress that the standard of assistance for those who need it is very high and very much appreciated, but just too limited in its scope. One head teacher said that he could do with three times as many teachers as he has dealing with this particular area, which is of course so important to help young people who are troubled for one reason or another. I appreciate that, in asking this question, I am sorry that it is somewhat longer than I had intended, but I appreciate that it is not the prime responsibility of you, cabinet secretary, but tackling mental health is something that requires collaboration across schools, health, social services and other areas of public life and indeed the third sector. I wonder how we can make sure that every school is able to provide a sufficient level of support in that area. What reporting mechanisms exist, for example, for head teachers to report to local authorities, education directors and so on? I am not familiar with that particular world. Do we need to do more to make sure that there is a reporting of outcomes to local authorities, for example, so that accountability exists in every one of the 32 local authorities? That is a very serious issue and it is something that the Government takes very seriously. Yes, much of the responsibility will be through CAMHS, but I would point to two examples of how education can assist in those areas. One would be the funding that we have given to local Government to allow for a councillor in every secondary school. That is quite a new initiative, so we are monitoring closely the demand on that service across the country to see how needs are being met and so on. It is quite a reasonably still new initiative, but it is available and an important addition to what is going on. The other aspect that I would point to is the development that we are putting the additional funding into next year's budget that will in-piece over the parliamentary session is around the whole family wellbeing funding. There is £50 million going in across Government on to the whole family wellbeing fund. It is very important that we look at the challenges that a young person or a family will face in a very holistic manner. It could include aspects around child poverty or educational attainment, but it could include mental health and substance abuse as well. Our development of that whole family wellbeing fund is another important step to ensure that we are supporting families and using educational establishments to be a source of where people can be reassured that that support will be available. There is no wrong door to this if a family needs support. The intention of this whole family wellbeing fund is to ensure that that happens. Mental health will absolutely play an important part in that. I am very pleased to hear about the recent development of a councillor in every secondary school. That sounds an extremely welcome development. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for the answer. I expect that it will be a matter that she will keep under close review and in her work with her cabinet colleagues. I have a quick supplementary from Stephanie Callaghan. Just following on from Fergus Ewing, I mentioned children and young people with additional support needs including neurodiversity. In the Morgan report, we heard quite often and other evidence that the focus ends up in children and young people who are present with challenging behaviour. Sometimes that is at the expense of the other children in the class who may also have additional support needs but may not be particularly present with those behaviours. I was wondering whether you could offer any reassurance about the fact that that is going to be addressed going forward. All teachers will provide significant support to pupils with additional support needs, as do the specialist support learning staff. The budget that we are discussing continues to provide additional support to local authorities for investing £15 million every year to enhance the capacity to respond effectively to individual needs. Clearly, how that money is utilised can be, for example, through additional pupil support assistance and whatnot. The overall responsibility for every young person lies with their school to be able to provide sufficient support, but we are jointly with COSLA implementing the ASL review outcomes. We have seen some of that work impacted by Covid, but we are keen to move forward with a revised action plan and, hopefully, the revised action plan will deal with some of the issues that you have raised there. Thanks very much. I have a supplementary question from Oliver Mundell. We will stay with Oliver for his questions to the cabinet secretary, Oliver Mundell. Thank you, convener. In relation to Fergus Ewing's question about rural funding, you mentioned the change to using low-income families as a measure for the attainment funding. Will the same consideration be given to extending it to pupil equity funding? I have raised it before, but I am concerned about a small number of what are predominantly smaller rural schools that do not get any pupil equity funding at all. From memory, 97 per cent of schools receive pupil equity funding. We have not published the allocations to each school on pupil equity funding. As yet, we will seek to do that in due course. Mr Mundell will be able to see at that point what the allocations are to it, but the use of free school meals as a proxy has been used as well. Of course, that will be as relevant, I hope, to a small rural school as that would be to larger areas, as it is based on the number of children that are presented for free school meals. I find that answer very disappointing, because it is well established that there is often stigma attached to being poor in rural communities where that poverty is much more visible. That is recognised by various poverty campaigners, so I am sad to hear that you think that school uptake is the same in rural areas, because many people do not. That is the case, however. I do not want to take up all my questioning time with a supplementary question. How much additional money has been allocated in the budget to guarantee that this year's exams will take place? There does not require to be any changes to the budget to ensure that exams will take place. The absolute central planning assumption of the SQA is that exams will take place, and that is the planning that is moving forward. Therefore, the budget that is set out for the SQA is on that basis. Again, I think that people will find that answer strange, particularly those in education who would expect to be pulling out all the stops this year after the disruption that we have seen in the past two years. Measures that have been suggested to me include acquiring additional community spaces to allow for greater social distancing should that be required at the time, taking on more invigilators and, of course, putting in place one-to-one catch-up support and tutoring for those young people who have missed out on a considerable amount of learning. Surely that that would seem sensible, and surely just telling them that what the questions are going to be is not a substitute for what they have missed out on? I answered Mr Mundell's original question based on what it takes to deliver exams. The delivery of exams is what I answered that on. The exams will take place, unless, at the time, during the exam diet, there is— The answer is that zero additional resources are going to support schools and the exams are actually taking place. The answer is £0. If you would let me answer the question, Mr Mundell, you might hear what I am about to say. The only reason that exams will not take place is because there is public health guidance around the prevention of gatherings. Clearly, if that happens, it would be irresponsible for the Government to say that exams should take place if there is public health advice saying gatherings should not happen. Clearly, the SQA is continuing to work on is an insurance that exams can take place safely, and it will continue to do that. Within the wider educational settlement, there is clearly a great deal of work that is on-going around what support can be given while the learning is disrupted. There is a wider pool of material in terms of the e-learning offer, increasing study support sessions, etc. There is a great deal not within the budget that we are looking at at this point, because clearly we need to be delivering that now. This year, this calendar year, there is increased support that has gone into the e-learning offer that will look at that. We are also very closely working with local Government colleagues on what they are already putting in place for Easter revision, and whether there is further support that can be made to that. The reason why I have not made an announcement on that today is because we need to know what the local authorities will be doing to make sure that what we are doing is in addition to what already happens. There is a great deal of work that is already on going to ensure that young people are being supported while their learning is being disrupted at this time. Yes, all that sounds like too little, too late, a tweet about some parts of the example process, but holding back other information that parents, teachers and young people are looking for. I think that people will judge that for themselves. Can I say, Mr Mundell, that I am not holding back any information on this? You have just said that you are looking at additional support for people to help them catch up on lost learning, but you are not going to tell us the detail of that right now. It is a joint endeavour education between local councils and the Scottish Government, and those discussions should not be taking place behind closed doors. You should be providing that information to parents, pupils and teachers now so that they can set aside time possibly in the Easter break to make the most of those provisions. We will be providing information as soon as we can about what is happening at a national level. I am sure that, at a local level, there is already work on going with schools and local authorities. I do not think that anyone wants to be in a position where young people are concerned about the build-up to their exams or to their learning. That is why it is very important to reassure them that, throughout this entire academic year, continuous work has been on going to ensure that, through eSchool and other eLearning opportunities, that work has continued to be built on. It will continue to be built on during this year. The feedback that we have had is that it is going down exceptionally well, and it is being well received by teachers and pupils. There has been an exceptional amount of work during this entire academic year to build on what is available to support children and young people, and we will continue to do so. I do not want to be rude, but I think that you need to get real. Young people, parents and teachers are anxious now. They are expressing concern. They feel that they have missed out on education. They feel that it is not clear. There is not clear messaging coming from the Government on what is going to happen with exams. You are saying that there are plans in the background for additional catch-up, but we do not know anything about them or what they would involve in detail. There is zero, from your answer, zero additional pounds going in to facilitate exams taking place and putting sensible precautions in place. It seems like a repeat of what we have seen in the past two years, in which exams and education are not really a priority. I also want to ask, as a final question, what additional resources and support is going in to help teachers to take part in the education reform process? Clearly, they have been pulling out all the stops to keep our young people in classrooms during the very best they can in difficult circumstances. What additional resources are you putting in place to free them up to participate in that process? Ken Muir has now completed his consultation on the work. The consultation was exceptionally well received by front-line staff and stakeholders and was heavily used in that. On top of that, we have had discussions in the Scottish Education Council and the teachers panel to ensure that there is maximum consultation and discussion that is going on. Ken Muir will now report back to me. It is due by the end of this month. I will then as quickly as I can, but his recommendations will cover a lot of ground as quickly as I can to report back in that. After that process has happened and I report back on the Government's response to Ken Muir, we will make sure that the work that was on-going from that has a very key role for the staff of both agencies that are involved in the reform process but also to ensure that staff themselves will play a role in that. What that will be, it will be difficult to determine at this point, because Mr Muir has not responded back at this point. I have given my reassurance to stakeholders that I am absolutely determined to have a very, very empowered reform process where front-line staff—and, importantly, pupils—have a key role in that process. That is adequately accounted for in the budget that we have in front of us. I will first go back to Bob Doris. I know that we have heard a couple of times on Bob. I want to make sure that he, if he has any further contribution that he wishes to make to that evidence session. I do not think so, convener. I think that there is quite a lot for the digestion of private as a committee. Maybe it takes forward on that basis, but thank you, convener. Thank you very much. There are a couple of colleagues who wish to come back in with supplementaries. I am going to first go to Michael Marra. Michael? Thanks, convener. It was an interesting camera to go back on. Thanks for letting me back in. I apologise to colleagues for raising—they know my obsession with ventilation issues. The cabinet secretary and I have exchanged letters and many comments in the chamber on that. I was very welcoming of the announcement yesterday, but I put some limited resource for active ventilation in schools. Prior to Christmas, the cabinet secretary was very strident in her rejection of any idea of active ventilation. What point over the Christmas period did the Government change its mind? Of the £5 million, how many air purifying devices does she think that that can provide for Scotland's schools? It remains as it was before Christmas. The guidance is based on the expert advice that the Government receives. Sorry, cabinet secretary. We are not hearing yet. If the convener can tell me if anyone else can hear me, because I can certainly— Yeah, I think that I can hear you. Right, okay. Yeah, perhaps that is my apologies. Sorry, but Mr Marra can come back if he can't hear me in correspondence, I'm sure he will, but I'll carry on at this point and see where we get to. I think that I said that the guidance hadn't changed from before Christmas. We listened very carefully to the expert advice that we have on this area. The £5 million is, of course, in addition to the £10 million that was given previously for CO2 monitoring, and of course the previous allocation for £90 million for Covid logistics, which many local authorities used part of that for improved ventilation. In terms of the support fund that was announced by the First Minister yesterday, that is to ensure that we are supporting the Scottish guidance. That is, as I said, the same as it was before Christmas on ventilation in schools. It will help to support any remedial action that is required. As I have said to Mr Marra and others in the past, feedback that we are getting from local authorities is a very small amount of the medial action that has been required for a small minority of spaces. I wanted to ensure that funding was not a blockage to this, hence the reason for that. Of course, that fund could be used for funding for HEPA filters if they were identified as the only appropriate solution for particular spaces, but I would point out once again the expert advice that we are getting in on this issue is that air-cleaning devices should not be used as an alternative to improving natural ventilation. It makes very clear in the updated guidance the circumstances in which the use of air-cleaning and frustration devices may be appropriate, and that is aligned with the advice that we are getting from the health and safety executive. The money is not simply for HEPA filters, but it is for what the remedial action local authorities feel is required, and they can discuss that with Scottish Government colleagues. Contrary to what the First Minister announced yesterday, it is not funding for active ventilation in schools. It is just an additional £5 million put on top of the previous money that has been allocated. The cabinet secretary has said that it has resulted in very limited action. That, to me, is very disappointing and, frankly— Felly, do you see my address? If I can, cabinet secretary, it is very contrary to what the First Minister said yesterday. We put forward a motion in December that the SNP and green colleagues voted against that that would have set out £30 million in total that could have procured two HEPA filters for each classroom in Scotland. Is that not the kind of action that should be taken now? We are talking about the budget today. Should the cabinet secretary not just recognise and listen to the First Minister, frankly, when she is saying in the chamber that this should happen, and actually argue for £30 million to be put in place in the budget to actually procure those filters? Felly, I suspect that the action that has been taken by local authorities is what local authorities have 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 can assure Mr Marr that I listen very carefully to what the First Minister says at all times. She and I are on absolutely the same page on this because there is a recognition that the money can be used for air filters, but it is, of course, within the use of guidance. As with all our reactions to Covid, policy must be based on expert advice. With the greatest respect to Mr Marr, the expert advice, including what comes from SAGE and health and safety executives, would not lead and suggest to the policy that he wishes to put in place. It simply does not equate to what the expert advice says needs to happen. What we have done as a Government is ensure that what we have is an opportunity for local authorities to be able to move forward with remedial action, absolutely if it is required for HEPA air cleaning filters to be used. It is very important that that is there. It is already within the guidance that that can happen. There is nothing stopping that happening at that point, if that is what is deemed that local authorities wish to happen. The other aspect that I am very keen to ensure that we take on is the concerns that Mr Marr raised. I concerned before Christmas, which I encouraged him to ensure that he had been taken up through official channels, but I have, in conjunction with my cos-le-coly councillor McCabe, written out to all local authorities—it will written out to all unions on this issue—to say that we have a workforce issues group where we continuously ask for specifics where we can within where our Scottish Government or local authorities act on specific concerns that teachers have. We have not had any specific concerns that we need to look at, but we have absolutely once again written out to all unions to ask them for not a general concern but if there are specific concerns from specific teachers, which we can of course deal with in confidence if required, that we take that very, very seriously and we have reached out to ensure that that can happen. We have reached a bit of an impasse here. The distance from the reality that teachers and pupils are facing on the ground in this response is quite astonishing. If I can, the cabinet secretary references a case that I raised with her in the chamber where she told me to ask a teacher to raise it with her union rep. That teacher is the union rep in the school. Those people are not finding any recourse in terms of the kind of action that they need for active ventilation, but it is quite clear what we are hearing now is that the fund put in place cannot even bring fence to be spent on that. I am at my wits end with this, frankly, with the cabinet secretary. Thank you so much for being on that subject. Mr Marra, the fund can be spent in any way that a local authority thinks it is required to be spent on. It is important that we give the ultimate flexibility to local authorities to allow that to happen. I certainly hope that local authorities will take up that flexibility and use that flexibility in any way that they require to be able to meet the guidance that is based on expert advice. We will take up any issue of individual concerns exceptionally seriously. How much are those units typically costing? The typical cost for a heap of filter is, I think, not something that is in my pack at the moment. It was something that we clearly looked at when we analysed the £5 million fund, so I can certainly get that very easily to committee, but I do not have that. The rationale for how you arrived at the 10 and the 5, in terms of—again, I come back to the theme that I started off meeting with in terms of outcomes. It would be quite interesting to know what the rationale is. Are they £500? Are they £1,000? Are they £5,000? It would be quite interesting to see what the working out is. When we were all at school, we were told to show our working out, so I would like to see the working out that the Government put into coming up with those numbers. Will you be agreeable to sending us that information as a committee? Absolutely. We can certainly look to do that. The £10 million fund was obviously there for CO2 monitoring, so it was based on the cost of delivery of CO2 monitoring, but for the level of funding that was required for the £5 million, that is not based on the fact that we think that we have an ask from local authorities to £4 million or £5 million at this point. That was our attempt to make sure that we are able to meet the needs of local authorities as it comes forward. There was a rationale to the £5 million, but it was not just the number that was plucked out of the thin air. No. No, money is certainly far too tight to pluck figures out of the air, so we can certainly provide that and the cost of the heap of filter to committee. I want to pluck a number out of the thin air for an air filter, but there you go, that is my joke for the morning. I am going to go to Ross Greer, who indicates that he wishes to come back in. He said earlier that he did as well. Thanks, convener, and yes, it is on this point still with filtration. In the first instance, I would just make the point that, at least on the EIS members survey that was completed and published recently, there is not a need to put two heap of filters in every single classroom in Scotland. There are thousands of classrooms where the data is showing us, and where teachers are telling us that there is sufficient airflow in ventilation spine. That being said, that is far from every classroom. That is why this money is being provided. I have a couple of questions about how the money is being deployed. Just in the first instance, could the cabinet secretary clarify—because this is a budget scrutiny session—that is the aim to deploy all this money in the current financial year? Are you in the next six weeks, or does the Government reckon that that will spell into the next financial year from 1 April? We are working very quickly with local authorities to be able to determine how to get this money out the door as quickly as possible. If there is a wish there to have funding provided, we want to be able to provide it in this financial year. Thanks. Is the aim in terms of that distribution model? Is the aim to come up with a formula for dividing between the 32 local authorities, or will it be on the basis of authorities essentially making a bid for what they believe is necessary in their area, how much that would cost and the difference that it would make? It is a pot that they can draw down from rather than £5 million that is distributed between 32 different bodies all at once. It ties in to the point that you raised about the need for this to be different in different local authority areas. It may vary depending on, for example, the age of the schools and what is in place already within different schools setting. It would seem more sensible for that to be drawn down as required by local authorities so that we can ensure that we are getting the money to where it is required. As Mr Gray rightly points out, the material that came up from the EIS survey about the feedback that we are receiving from local authorities and from the CO2 monitoring is that there has been very little remedial action that has been required at this point, so we want to be able to direct that £5 million funding to where it is needed. Thanks. Just finally, you mentioned a letter that was sent in the name of yourself and Councillor Stephen McCabe to unions. That was forwarded to me this morning by a union that I have been working with on this issue. They certainly welcomed the opportunity to give those specific examples because I understand that there has been this disconnect between the anecdotal examples that we are all hearing and the specifics that are reaching the issues group that are able to resolve them. Can I just check it as well as being sent to unions? Will that letter, will that offer also be made openly to individual teachers but also to teachers who are organising, as well as through their unions, through other groups as well? I am aware that a lot of the issues around ventilation have been spearheaded by a grassroots group of teachers that were featured on STV BBC News. In the past couple of days, I am sure that they would be very keen to contribute as a group. Most of them are union reps themselves, and I am sure that we will do it through that avenue, but are we maximising the number of ways that teachers and other school staff are able to flag up specific issues that are, for whatever reason, not being resolved at school or local authority level? We certainly cannot speak on behalf of Councillor McCabe, but overall, we are in joint agreement between local and national government that we want to do anything that is required to be able to assist in that. Of course, we would take information from other sources if that was at all possible. I would point to the fact that we have the workforce issues group that is chaired by COSLA, which looks at many issues, but particularly ventilation, where unions are chaired by COSLA. Unions are asked for specific examples that are not being dealt with locally and that can be escalated if it needs to be dealt with in another way. That has not proved fruitful. We have not had material coming through, hence the reason why I have taken the decision to write out directly to once again appeal to unions, but I am happy to take that information from elsewhere. There are particular concerns in areas that that avenue is open, and the workforce issues group is the place where that can be looked at in great detail. I have probably had a dozen specific issues raised with me that I am happy to go back and confirm with those teachers that they are happy to have them passed on to the working issues group, if that is the case. I hope that I will have that with you by the end of the week. That is all for me, convener. Thank you, Ross Greer, and a supplementary from Stephanie Callaghan. Thank you, convener. I see that my microphone has just come on. Cabinet Secretary, there have certainly been some challenging questions around education budget today for you, but not always the most polite, sadly. Can you comment on the importance of the wider policies, such as the Scottish child payment, that are outwith education itself, that are critical for addressing the poverty-related attainment gap in the longer term, particularly with the UK Government reducing universal credit at the moment? Perhaps it would be helpful to have some reassurance from you that you will be arguing passionately that the wider policies that impact educational achievement will be prioritised at cabinet level and beyond. That is not a supplementary, but if you would very briefly seek to answer that, I will surely answer them all, thank you. Briefly, the point that is a very valid one is that there are many impacts on education from other parts of Scottish Government expenditure. The poverty-related attainment gap is a key concern for Government to be able to close that. One of the aspects that we also need to do is tackle child poverty and its source. The Scottish child payment, which Stephanie Callaghan mentioned, is an example of that. There is very close working that is happening between education and child poverty officials, for example, in Ms Robertson's portfolio, to be able to ensure that we are very, very collegiately working together on child poverty and education. I would give that as one example of how the importance of other parts of Government impact on education. Thank you so much. One last question for me is that, as you mentioned in your report, you mentioned some timelines earlier, but can I ask if the committee can receive a copy of the report before the Scottish Government makes its response to it? I am not yet aware of when exactly Ken Muir will report back. He is finalising that, and it is within his gift. We certainly expect that to be by the end of the year, and then we will look to publish his report in due course after that. Obviously, at that point, the committee would be made aware of that. Thank you. We would like to have a look at the report as soon as we possibly can, as I am sure you feel exactly the same way. Cabinet Secretary, I thank you and your officials for your time today. It has been a very useful revealing session, typically robust but all well within order. We look forward to the next occasion that you and your officials will join us in our committee meeting. The public part of today's meeting is now an end, and I will now suspend the meeting. Can I ask members to reconvene on Microsoft Teams, and that will allow us to consider our final agenda item in private? Thank you and good morning.