Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am sorry, Mr Mason, but that is not my understanding. We need to be really clear on this point, because it is the point on which SPICe was to-ing and fro-ing with my officials. Again, I direct members to table 3 on page 7 of your public papers, which makes it very clear. It shows a £69.6 million increase—a 10 per cent uplift. That comes from the £61.4 million, which is a 9.3 per cent uplift for resource, and £8.2 million for capital. That is separate from the DLC fund. Those are two separate budget lines. We must not try to put them together, which I think is where the confusion has arisen.

I accept from the exchange here today, convener, but also from the press reports today, which I do not think are helpful, that we need to reflect on ways in which we communicate the budget. Bluntly, there is no point in my going in to bat with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government for extra college funding if you then look at tables like this one and conclude that that is not what is happening, or that there is ambiguity around the sector. It is not helpful to me, as cabinet secretary, either, so I think that we, as a Government, need to learn how to better present those figures.

I see Shirley Laing nodding. Mr Mason has an assurance from me that my understanding is not what he set out today. The DLC fund is quite separate, and core college funding is, in its totality, at £70 million, a 10 per cent uplift. That is what the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government announced in the budget last week. The DLC fund is not part of that.

We need to reflect on that and on how we communicate extra funding that the Government puts in. I accept Mr Mason’s points in that regard.

Yes, I hear that.

I may have to defer to officials on that. Education has to play its role in our providing a clear route in terms of the savings that are required, and that is challenging.

Referring to the convener’s point on this, I would reflect that the colleges sector has more than played its role in that regard in recent years. I have of course been making these points in discussion with colleagues. We need to be mindful about not starting on a level playing field, particularly in the college sector, where there have been staff reductions in recent years. I am very aware that we need a more targeted approach to how the measures might be delivered.

Clare Hicks may wish to come in with a specific number.

I have already given a commitment to write to the committee, so we will assemble a list and make sure that we provide you with a fuller update. It is worth rehearsing again Clare Hicks’s point that those discussions remain on-going in relation to the substantive number that Mr Briggs is seeking.

10:15

We need to track back to the points that I made earlier. We are talking about the start of 2022. The Liz Truss mini-budget was in September 2022. We need to be mindful that we set out a trajectory, and then a number of incidents happened, not least involving a former leader of your party, convener, which affected inflationary rates across the United Kingdom. All our mortgages are going up, things are much more expensive now than they used to be, and there is less money to spend on capital projects because of those inflationary pressures. I am sure that those things have had an impact on our plans.

I see that Shirley Laing would like to come in on the substantive point.

I thought you were saying four years from today, so I traced that time back. However, it is important to note that the impacts of that mini-budget continue.

As I understand it, yes.

No. I am not sure that I share Mr Rennie’s description of “excuses”. Had it been the case that I was not keen to advance that work, I would not have come forward with the proposals that I set out. I did that quite deliberately and publicly, so that teachers could hear my views about how they could be delivered.

We have noted that issues have arisen that perhaps we would not have accounted for in 2021, not least the exponential increase in teacher wages, which means that Scotland’s teachers are now the best paid on these islands and continue to be well paid. Increasing their wages was the right thing to do, but it has meant that there is less money for other things.

11:15

We also protected funding in the budget for reducing class contact time. As Mr Rennie will be aware, we created a pot of funding to protect teacher numbers, which, I think, goes back to Ms Somerville’s time as cabinet secretary. That was enhanced last year, in line with inflation. We have maintained that approach this year.

Our independent modelling, which was carried out in 2023, said that, if we went back to 2023 teacher numbers, we would have enough teacher numbers to reduce class contact time in primary schools, and we could progress to secondary provision thereafter. That is why that funding was attached to that.

We are of the view that we have capacity in the system to do that at the current time. The issue in relation to how we resolve the dispute concerns the use of the time. As Mr Rennie knows, the EIS has a clear view on how that time should be split. We are trying to find a route forward via the SNCT to avert industrial action because we do not believe—I certainly do not believe—that that is in anyone’s interest.

Absolutely.