Seòmar agus comataidhean

Maureen McAteer has made an interesting point, which has been made to me before—that the money does not follow the child. An indicator of need and poverty within a school results in a financial sum to be spent on raising attainment within that school. Clearly, that does not follow a child when they go to another area.

I was going to ask Sara Spencer whether something around co-production could be a way forward. PEF is to be guaranteed over three-year periods, I think, to allow greater planning. School headteachers will want to talk to their parent councils and wider school communities, and they will want to make decisions that are based on the needs of the school—which sits within the wider community that the third sector is part of. Are there any good examples of co-production with the use of PEF moneys, or should we talk about co-production more in relation to the direction of some of those funds—keeping the school still in charge of deciding how that money is spent, but knitting in some of those third sector organisations? That might be pie in the sky, but I am trying to find a solution.

It seems like some time ago that Louise Goodlad was talking about good examples of working with families and young people in secondary schools on employability, linking with businesses, CVs, interview experience and so on. It is worth noting that figures that came out yesterday showed a record level—more than 95 per cent—of young people in Scotland reaching a positive destination, so we must be doing something right in schools. I am sure that the third sector is a key partner in making sure that we get it right. Good things are happening, convener.

I cannot help but say that, in Glasgow, attainment levels are well above the national average and the city has met the significant challenge of young people in deprived communities reaching positive destinations. I have got that out of the way, convener. I wanted to say that I am very proud of my local authority.

How do we map the role of the third sector within that and maximise the benefit of the third sector? In 2021, analysis of PEF showed that 43 per cent of headteachers said that they were collaborating with the third sector, which means that more than half were not collaborating with the third sector. There is a contradiction and a tension, because we want headteachers and school communities to have the flexibility to spend the PEF money as they see fit, but I would want to assure myself that they are maximising the wider opportunities that are out there, including by contracting with the third sector.

I would welcome comments on whether there is a need for a more formal role in how schools engage with the third sector. There is no guarantee that the third sector would necessarily get funding from PEF, but should a more formal process be gone through in spending PEF? Given that I mentioned Louise Goodlad, it is only right that I ask her to respond first.

My final question is for Jim Wallace. I mentioned that 43 per cent of headteachers report using the third sector. In my area, the third sector is hugely valued and many headteachers know its value. How do we increase that amount from 43 per cent and get significant involvement from the third sector in a way that keeps schools and headteachers in control of spending?

I have a couple of unrelated questions; I do not know whether you want me to cover those now or not, convener.

I do not want to dwell on that, for obvious reasons. I am trying to look forward as much as back. You have a team of five in total—as I think that you mentioned—and you lead on all complaints, but you delegate the day-to-day operation of dealing with the processes around those complaints, and the details of investigations, to your team.

For clarity, has the investigations manual been in operation for some time, or is it new?

I have no further questions. I thank Mr Bruce for his evidence and for answering our questions this morning.

I am sorry to get hung up on the process, Mr Bruce. You lead on all MSP complaints, but you delegate the day-to-day investigatory responsibilities to one of a team of five. They are all fully trained in a new and refreshed investigations manual and encouraged to talk to each other and draw on each other for support. All that is in place.

When you get a final report from the investigating officer on your desk, it makes a recommendation about the complaint, which will almost certainly be admissible because it has got to that point. The report will show the investigating officer’s working and lay out the evidence. You, as commissioner, have to decide whether you will agree the recommendation and ratify or sanction it as the way forward or change the decision.

When you agree with the investigating officer and the recommendation moves forward, that is fine. However, there must be situations in which you do not agree with the recommendation that the investigating officer makes. That is okay; it is an important check and balance in the system. However, when that happens, what is the process for supporting your investigating officer with continuing professional development or a review of the case? What happens at that point? Is there a supportive learning experience for your investigating officer?

I am not asking for the numbers, but do you keep track of the number of times when you agree with the investigating officer’s conclusion and when you do not agree? Clearly, if there was an increasing number of situations in which the commissioner—any commissioner, not just you as acting commissioner—did not agree with the investigating officer’s conclusion, that might point to issues, weaknesses or challenges in the investigatory process.

I thought that that was going to be a straightforward question, but it might be a little bit more complicated now. However, it would be helpful for the committee to know the answers.

I just wanted to make sure that the committee was not missing any barrier to filling that post. I thank Mr Bruce for clarifying the position.

This is quite important because, clearly, your team will be watching this evidence session and our exchange. If I were a member of your team, I would absolutely be watching it—get back to your work if you are watching it right now; watch it later. I was not casting aspersions on your team. My questions were more about checks and balances in the system and whether, if the data flagged up something that needed to be attended to, that might be due to a lack of clarity in the investigations manual or a lack of clarity in processes more generally. Therefore, for staff who are watching this, it is important to say that I was not casting aspersions on them. I am looking at checks and balances in the system and the processes that underpin it.

I think that you are saying that it is not the case that the investigating officer goes away for three months and comes back with a conclusion to put on your desk. There is a weekly review process, so no one is going to go down a tangential path in an investigation that you are unaware of. You take a more collegiate approach to investigations. Have I captured that properly?