Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a final question on the issue. You have just been in discussion with the convener about the Government’s commitment to reducing teacher contact time. What is the relationship between the additional funding for teacher recruitment and the objective of reducing class contact time and getting a more balanced workload for the existing teaching workforce?

That is a useful clarification of the purpose of those additional three columns. I have one other technical question about the fifth stream of funding, which is teacher pay. I will use Aberdeen City Council as an example, because it is first on the spreadsheet that I can see. We are told that £200,000 is allocated for teacher pay as part of Aberdeen City Council’s allocation of the overall £145 million. What exactly does teacher pay mean there? I presume that the overwhelming majority of the money in the other four columns will be spent on teacher pay. A small amount will go towards the admin payroll and so on, but the £145 million will overwhelmingly be spent on paying additional teachers, so what is the purpose of the specific allocation for teacher pay within that?

Thanks very much for that.

I have probably taken up enough time, convener. I would be keen to come back in later, regarding the costs of Covid, but I am sure that other members will want to contribute before you come back to me.

It is on the point about filtration. In the first instance, I make the point that, at least on the basis of the Educational Institute of Scotland members survey, which was completed and published recently, there is no need to put two HEPA filters in every single classroom in Scotland. There are thousands of classrooms for which the data shows us, and teachers are telling us, the air flow is sufficient and ventilation is fine.

That said, that is far from the situation in every classroom, which is why the money is being provided. I have a couple of questions about how the money is being deployed. Given that this is a budget scrutiny session, can the cabinet secretary clarify one point? Is the aim to deploy all the money in the current financial year, within the next six weeks, or does the Government reckon that it will spill into the next financial year, from 1 April?

With regard to the distribution model, is the aim to come up with a formula for dividing the money between the 32 local authorities, or will it be distributed on the basis of authorities making a bid for what they believe is necessary in their area, including how much it would cost and the difference that it would make? Is it a pot from which they can draw down, rather than £5 million being distributed between 32 different bodies all at once?

You mentioned a letter that was sent to unions in your name and that of Councillor Stephen McCabe. It was forwarded to me this morning by a union that I have been working with on this issue. The union welcomed the opportunity to give those examples because, as I understand it, there is a disconnect between the anecdotal evidence that we are all hearing and the specific issues being dealt with in a way that can resolve them.

As well as being sent to unions, will the offer in that letter be made openly to individual teachers and to teachers who are organising through groups other than their unions? I am aware that a lot of the issues around ventilation have been spearheaded by a grass-roots group of teachers who were featured on BBC and STV news in the past couple of days. I am sure that that group would be keen to contribute, although most of its members are union reps and, I am sure, will contribute through that avenue. Are we maximising the number of ways in which teachers and other school staff are able to flag up specific issues that, for whatever reason, are not being resolved at a school or local authority level?

Around a dozen specific issues have been raised with me, and I am happy to ask those teachers whether they are happy to have them passed on to the working issues group. If they are, I should have those issues with you by the end of the week.

I will stick with the previous line of questioning about teacher recruitment and numbers.

The £145 million that was announced as part of the budget, which the cabinet secretary mentioned in her opening statement, is the largest single increase for teacher recruitment since 2007. However, I want to drill down into the detail of that. Subsequent to the publication of the budget, that number was subject to some negotiation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—as is normal, because local authorities will deploy the fund. My understanding is that that £145 million, as well as being broken down by 32 local authorities, is broken down into what are essentially five funding streams, which are listed as funding for teachers, primary teaching staff, secondary teaching staff, special schools and teacher pay.

Will the cabinet secretary, in the first instance, explain what the distinction is between funding for teachers and the three streams of primary, secondary and special schools? It appears that funding for teachers is the largest single amount. For example, Aberdeen City Council is first on the list and there is £2.6 million for it in funding for teachers, but there is then £800,000 for primary teaching staff, £900,000 for secondary teaching staff and £240,000 for special schools. What are those three additional columns for if they are separate from that stream of funding for teachers?

Thank you—that is useful. The whole exercise is highly politicised, of course, but given those confines, the report is a relatively technical part of informing what will be a much more politicised review.

David Eiser mentioned forecast error borrowing. Before we get into a debate about how we decide on the limit for that—whether it should be a cash percentage or whatever—which I presume will come with the review, should we ask what the rationale is for having a limit on forecast error borrowing at all? It is less about a divergence in policy choice and more about correcting for a divergence in technical exercises; it is about correcting for error rather than for a divergence in choice. What purpose does a limit serve when the issue is simply to do with forecast error corrections?

Yes, I think that we are a deeply asymmetric unitary state.

I will leave it there, convener.