Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am glad that, from outside Parliament, it seemed to be working well. Perhaps Graeme Dey, who was the Minister for Parliamentary Business at the time, can at some point allude to the genuine difficulties of working through a public health emergency when we could not all sit in one room and pass legislation.

Unfortunately, the legislation that we need when we are in an emergency is needed in a very short time, which does not allow for proper parliamentary scrutiny. When you face a public health emergency, every single day counts. It takes days for legislation to go through Parliament, and we then go through the process—

The bill allows the power to make regulations, which would then go through Parliament. In how the bill is framed at this point, we are ensuring that, instead of directional powers being taken, the powers to make regulations would go through Parliament. That would ensure the ability to have far greater scrutiny over ministerial decisions than we have been able to have under the directional powers that we had previously under the coronavirus legislation.

I think that we have all learned, as we have gone through the pandemic, the importance of quick decision making but also that parliamentary scrutiny must absolutely be included in that process. That is why the safeguards in the bill that require parliamentary approval for regulations are very important.

The key strength of providing specific funding for specific purposes is that that ensures that all the money that is provided for a certain purpose goes to that purpose. I point to the example of the expansion to 1,140 hours of early learning and childcare. Such projects have very much been a shared priority of the Scottish Government and local government. Such funding has allowed the Scottish Government to move forward with the commitment to provide that early learning and childcare via local authorities.

I appreciate that ring fencing funding reduces local authority discretion in some 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. We recognise that local authorities have called for less ring-fenced funding, and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy has committed to reviewing all ring-fenced funding as part of the resource spending review. We will continue our constructive engagement with local government on education areas that are ring fenced.

There is no specific allocation within the overall Scottish Government budget for teacher pay. As Mr Greer rightly points out, the budget for teacher recruitment is, in effect, for teachers’ pay. That is what it is spent on. The committee will be aware that we are still going through the process of seeking an agreement on teachers’ pay for this financial year. The committee will also be aware that an offer was made by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which is currently with the trade union members for discussion and decision.

With the committee’s forbearance, I will not say too much about the current teacher’s pay situation, because we are clearly in the middle of the process. That process has gone on for an exceptionally long time, and I appreciate that teachers are very frustrated about how long it is taking. We need to come to agreement on teachers’ pay, but it needs to work its way through the SNCT, as per the usual process.

The Scottish Government stands by to make any changes that it can to allow that process to move forward, but the Government has already put in additional funding to the overall local government settlement, which assisted with the wider local government workforce planning and is a demonstration of how we have played our part in moving things forward. The process must now run its course through the SNCT.

Yes.

The overall settlement that has been provided will deliver real-terms growth. It protects core budgets in cash terms, it will allow additional funding to be provided for teachers and support staff, and it contains funding for the 100 days commitments, some of which I mentioned in my introductory remarks. It also contains funding for the free school meals settlements.

If Mr Rennie wishes more money to go into local government or elsewhere, I am sure that he will tell me—or perhaps Ms Forbes later in the budget process—where money should be cut from to allow that to happen.

With the greatest respect, Mr Marra, local authorities have taken the action that they 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 assure Mr Marra that I listen very carefully to what the First Minister says at all times. She and I are absolutely on the same page on this, because there is a recognition that the money can be used for air filters, but, of course, it is a matter for the use of guidance. As with all our reactions to Covid, policy must be based on expert advice. Again, with the greatest respect to Mr Marra, the expert advice—including what comes from SAGE and the Health and Safety Executive—would not suggest or lead to the policy that he wishes to put in place, because it does not equate to what the expert advice says needs to happen.

As a Government, we have ensured an opportunity for local authorities to move forward with remedial action, including, if required, the use of HEPA air-cleaning filters. It is very important that that opportunity is there. It is already within the guidance that that can happen, if local authorities wish, so nothing is stopping it happening at that point.

I am very keen to ensure that we take on concerns. Before Christmas, Mr Marra raised a concern, which I encouraged him to ensure was taken up through official channels. In conjunction with my COSLA colleague, Councillor Stephen McCabe, I have written to all the unions to say that we have a workforce issues group where we continuously ask for specifics, so that the Scottish Government or local authorities can act on specific concerns that teachers have. We have not had any specific concerns that we need to look at but, once again, we have written to all unions to ask them not for general concerns but for specific concerns from specific teachers, which we can deal with in confidence, if required. We take that very seriously, and we have reached out to ensure that that can happen.

Mr Marra, the fund can be spent in any way that a local authority thinks is required. I think that it is important that we give local authorities the ultimate flexibility to allow that to happen, and I certainly hope that they will take up that flexibility and use it in any way they require to enable them to meet the guidance, which is based on expert advice. We will take any individual concerns exceptionally seriously.

The point is a valid one. There are many impacts on education from other parts of Scottish Government expenditure. Closing the poverty-related attainment gap is a key concern for Government. One of the aspects of the issue is the need to tackle child poverty at its source, and the Scottish child payment, which Stephanie Callaghan mentioned, is an example of what we are doing in that regard. There is extremely close working going on between education officials and child poverty officials in Shona Robison’s portfolio to ensure that we are working together collegiately on child poverty and education. That is one example of the important impacts of other parts of Government on education.

Yes, I do. Again, the aspects around the attainment challenge funding relate specifically to some of the responses from Audit Scotland in its work on the first phase. We absolutely took that feedback on board and listened carefully to what was said as we went through the refresh for the second phase of the SAC.