Official Report 575KB pdf
Welcome to this small but perfectly formed 32nd meeting in 2010 of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. I remind everyone to switch off mobile phones and BlackBerrys.
The committee will be aware that the scale of the total reduction in the Scottish budget for 2011-12 has required tough decisions to be taken across Government. In the office of the First Minister, the year-on-year cut in cash terms is £16.9 million, or 6.7 per cent, for resource budgets, and £7.8 million, or 27.6 per cent, for capital budgets. That reflects the particularly deep cuts in capital budgets that the United Kingdom Government has made.
Thank you for that helpful introduction. The committee has a number of questions for you, which I will begin.
No. We are funding a number of major capital projects that will come on stream this year: the Royal Museum of Scotland in Chambers Street in Edinburgh; the Scottish national portrait gallery; the Stirling castle palace project—with Historic Scotland; and the Burns centre. The funding for new projects, such as those in Glasgow and, in particular, the project in Dundee, is possible because the funding for a number of other projects comes to an end before 2011-12.
How does Scotland benefit from the ring-fenced funds that Arts & Business receives?
We think that it is important to try to generate income from private organisations and businesses and to lever that into arts and culture, because that helps to provide new income streams and to support a number of important projects.
Is it your view as we go forward and as central budgets decline that the private sector will be able to pick up a lot of slack in order to continue growth in the cultural sector?
That is perhaps wishful and optimistic thinking. If we can maintain levels of investment, we will be doing very well. It is interesting to note that that happens not only with projects that are funded by Arts & Business, but, for example, with the national companies. I think that about 30 to 40 per cent of the national companies’ income come from sources other than the Government, because they rely on other types of funding. A lot of private investors in a range of areas sponsor events.
You said that there will be much less flexibility than there has been in the past. What will that mean in cash terms for organisations that are looking for funding half way through the financial year?
I made it clear in my press release on the day of the budget that the budgets that organisations receive are what they will have to use during the course of the year and that flexibility during the year will be much restricted.
I am sorry, my BlackBerry went off. I did not realise that I would have to dismantle it to stop it ringing.
It is important to remember that the setting up of Creative Scotland delivered efficiencies. We expect Creative Scotland to do more, particularly with the creative industries and in relation to the youth music initiative—I mentioned the funding for that, and there is lottery funding, too. We are confident that there is an opportunity to set a new model for funding going forward.
The Scottish Government has agreed to fund a creative Scotland themed year. Will you explain what that is?
You might be aware that, after the success of homecoming year last year, we plan the next homecoming year to be 2014, when the world will come to Scotland for the Commonwealth games and the Ryder cup. It will also be the anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn, and the new Bannockburn centre will open.
Thank you. What level of funding will the Scottish Government put into the themed years?
The major events and themed years budget, on the legacy work, is £1.7 million. That covers funding for active Scotland, which is next year, and preparations for creative Scotland in 2012. That £1.7 million will come from my budget.
Do you believe that it will be enough to have an impact?
I think that it will. If we look at what is happening with the current focus on food and drink, there have been a number of showcase events that have helped to bring different organisations together. For example, I was at the world pipe band championships, and Argyll food and drink took a fantastic pavilion at that event and brought in some of the healthiest burgers you can imagine, such as venison burgers and salmon burgers. Some of the fantastic fruit and beers from the area were also showcased.
How does the Scottish Government expect Creative Scotland to help the creative industries?
That is a huge and important area. The committee has taken a keen interest in the development of Creative Scotland. I can now confirm that the Scottish creative industries partnership, which is chaired by Creative Scotland, has a number of reference groups that are taking forward specific creative industries and what is needed to support them, be that skills or enterprise. Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Scottish Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council and Creative Scotland all come together in the creative industries partnership.
I will move on to the cultural collections. We can see from the draft budget that the budget for the cultural collections will be reduced, but how will that reduction be divided among the organisations?
I sent a letter to the committee in which I outlined the differences for the individual collections. Their budgets will be reduced, but that reduction is less than the overall average reduction in my budget. In my introductory remarks, I said that there would be a 6.7 per cent reduction in the culture and Gaelic budget. The reduction for the National Galleries of Scotland, the National Museums Scotland, the National Library of Scotland and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland is around 4 per cent.
Do you have any details about how the collections will deal with that reduction? Have they come to you with any ideas?
I think that the reduction is less than they expected, but that does not necessarily mean that they do not have a difficult thing to deal with. They have to schedule what they can do. We are conscious that their programming means that they have to protect what they are doing in the immediate year, but they will obviously have to anticipate what that means going forward.
You have pre-empted and answered my second question. I was going to ask you about capital pressures, but you have covered that issue. However, I have another question. Where there is an expectation that the national collections and the national companies will work together, how will they do that, and what will be the benefits?
Those are important questions. There are domestic and international opportunities for Scotland. Recently, we held a very successful meeting in which we brought together the national collections and the national companies to identify what they can do internationally to support our cultural diplomacy activities and opportunities. The First Minister had a very successful visit to Paris with the Royal Scottish National Orchestra, for example. There, the RSNO’s fantastic showcase performance was combined with a number of meetings that the First Minister had with representatives of energy interests and the French Government.
That is great—if people are getting their bids in, I suggest the town house in Hamilton as a wonderful venue for anything else that comes up. Obviously, there is a change to the budgets for the national companies, too, and my question is basically the same: how do you think the change in budgets will affect the performing companies?
We recognise the programming pressures for the national companies, which will not receive the full 6.7 per cent reduction that is being made across the rest of the budget. Each company will receive a cut of around 4 per cent, which will allow them to continue with most of their planned programmes.
It is heartening that that is the case, even during a recession. Perhaps, in a perverse way, it is because the recession is preventing people from travelling further afield, so they are looking at what is going on in their local area and getting involved. As a parent I am trying to get hold of tickets for the Hamilton youth theatre’s production of “The Wizard of Oz” at Hamilton town house in a couple of weeks’ time, and it has been a bit of a challenge.
That is another good plug—have you got shares?
I will move on to more serious stuff. In the draft budget, the Government talks about “comparative reductions short-term”. What does that mean, and what does it mean for the long term?
That is part of the challenge. The national companies and the national collections in particular have to do a lot of advance planning for exhibitions or performances that are some years in the future. Obviously, they will have to absorb large reductions very quickly. Our general reaction is that the Westminster budget cuts have been too hard and too fast. There is a particular challenge for organisations that have to plan so far in advance.
One of the budget decisions that you had to make involves BBC Alba. There is still uncertainty about whether the channel will be on Freeview. Can you say any more about the likelihood of our getting a decision soon about Freeview? How has the uncertainty around that played a role in your budget decisions?
One of the things that we are conscious of in relation to MG Alba is its ability to conduct a number of efficiencies in the last period.
The Government recently published the recommendations of its Scots language working group. I declare an interest, in that I was on that group. How will those affect the Government’s thinking on the budget for the Scots language either this year or in future?
I have written to the convener of this committee with the report from the Scots language working group. It is a thoughtful report and I thank all those who contributed to it.
The Government has put considerable effort into the reorganisation of Historic Scotland. What effect has the reorganisation had on the budget and approach of the organisation?
Historic Scotland is conducting a reorganisation to refocus its activity in ways that best serve the nation and the properties it conserves. One effect is to bring all the conservation activity under one director, which will help Historic Scotland to focus on Scotland’s traditional building skills, including apprenticeship training. People may not be aware that Historic Scotland is the biggest employer of stonemasons in Scotland. A lot of the focus in the debate on the skills that are needed across Scotland is on apprenticeships for new build, but conservation is also important.
You mentioned the implications of the budget on the approach and management of Historic Scotland. Does the budget have any implication for any prominent properties?
No. Obviously, there is an assessment of what Historic Scotland does with a number of its properties in terms of income generation. The assessment is probably similar to that which the National Trust for Scotland undertook. We need to assess what we can and should do with Historic Scotland properties, including making them available for other uses. Questions have been put on how to join up our national collections and our national companies. A number of Historic Scotland properties have great performance spaces. I am very keen that we connect up performances and places to ensure that all the communities of Scotland get to experience that. I will bring in Linda Ellison to talk about property management and the budget.
Good morning. The main thing to say on budget implications for Historic Scotland properties is that we have completed the Stirling castle palace project by Easter 2011. That will free up funding for us to focus on other aspects of our business and meet the reductions that we are having to meet.
It is not just about the properties that Historic Scotland has. In the budget, we are also trying to protect the small grants schemes, such as the conservation area regeneration scheme, for communities that have buildings that they want to support. I visited the Barony church in West Kilbride, in the convener’s constituency. When the Cabinet was in Bute, I was shown the ideas that the people of Rothesay had for what they would like to protect. It is important to remember that it is not just Historic Scotland’s properties that we are trying to support; it is also properties that other organisations have. For example, in Kilmarnock, there was a successful regeneration project that combined property investment and some of the small grants.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I apologise for my late entry to the committee this morning. I live in Edinburgh but on the fringe.
That is okay. I live in Linlithgow and we have 3ft of snow.
It is pretty rough out there.
We are putting the arrangements for the merger in place so that, in year 1, 2011-12, there will be little impact on staffing apart from on the existing budgets—and all organisations will have some pressures on those. The NAS/GROS merger will lead to a single body being responsible for holding and making available information about people in Scotland. There will be areas for sharing, such as the public-facing side of things, the accessing of records—on site and offline—and the storage of paper and digital records. Back-office services, including finance and information and communications technology, will also be shared, along with a range of services that the two bodies already share, including accommodation, training and development, conservation, records management and library issues. The merger will be the logical conclusion of a process that, in a sense, has already started with the Scotland’s people online service, which is a successful collaboration. The merger will strengthen the joint service. The target date for the full amalgamation is April 2012, to coincide with the start of the new financial year. However, I reassure the committee that substantial progress will be made during 2011-12.
What level of efficiency savings does the Government expect from the amalgamation?
I stress that this is about the service we provide, not just efficiencies and the saving of resources. I will have to check my papers on where we got to with the NAS in particular. Most of the efficiency savings will come from senior management, finance, information security management and IT services, and the actual amounts will be in the budget that is provided. All organisations, including the National Archives of Scotland, will receive reductions in their budgets; the NAS is receiving a 4 per cent reduction over the year. Those of you who are familiar with bringing together organisations will know that we will not necessarily save money in 2011-12, although we will do so going forward. The amalgamation is going ahead with a reduction in the National Archives of Scotland’s budget of 4 per cent in 2011-12. That is not counting the reduction in the GROS budget, which is currently sitting with Jim Mather’s budget.
Originally, the review looked at the work of the General Register Office for Scotland, the National Archives of Scotland and the Registers of Scotland. The decision was to amalgamate GROS with the National Archives of Scotland but not the Registers of Scotland. Have you identified ways in which the Registers of Scotland may be involved in shared services, short of the level of amalgamation that the other two organisations face?
That is an important question. John Swinney and Jim Mather have led on the merger. A number of options were available. Some fell short of saying that all three organisations need to be merged at once but identified where services could be shared. All three organisations will be expected to make efficiency savings, so I anticipate that, regardless of the merger decision, they will want to maximise their resources and that the Registers of Scotland, too, may be able to be involved in sharing services, many of which are already listed.
I am not sure whether I should have lodged an historic interest as someone who worked for the Registers of Scotland for five years.
That is a good question. We have discussed such issues a great deal because of the level of the cuts with which we must deal. I have a more direct relationship with a number of bodies than do ministers with other portfolios. Because the organisations are small—staffing costs account for most of their budgets, as they consist of performers—I must be extremely sensitive to the pressures that they face year to year. We have tried to work with each of the organisations to identify the pressures that they face and their particular needs. If there are pressures on revenue, we have tried to relieve some of the pressures on capital, and to do so in the years that matter to them. For example, we have given the RSNO initial funding to help the new development in Glasgow, which will also support the Commonwealth games. We have also recognised the need to tackle the storage issues that some of the national collections face. We have tried to be sensitive to the needs of each organisation, to work with them and, in a way, to reward success, which is sometimes one of the most challenging things to do.
I apologise for arriving late. I have a few questions that I would like to ask. Could you advise me how many have been asked already?
All the questions on the briefing paper have been asked.
None of the questions that I want to raise are in the briefing paper.
Feel free to ask any question you like.
I noticed that Scottish Opera’s grant has been cut by about 4 per cent. There was some discussion that it might receive a cut of up to 10 per cent. Given that the cut is less than was expected, do you think that Scottish Opera is right to press ahead with changing the orchestra from full time to part time?
Decisions about how Scottish Opera organises the orchestra are for the management to make. A tension around my role as minister is that members tell me that I must respect the independence of the cultural companies and organisations and allow them to make their own decisions about how they operate and then ask me to give opinions on those decisions. That puts me in a difficult position. I cannot and will not interfere with the management of the organisations.
The suggestion that the decision has the support of staff is not quite right. I think that the staff have reluctantly accepted the decision, which is not the same as supporting it. My information is that the staff took the decision in a state of anxiety and apprehension about the future of their jobs, which I have to say is a terrible context in which to have to vote on or approve anything.
The issue is the quality of the performance. There are budget constraints, but I have said pointedly to all the companies and the collections that we do not want to compromise on quality. Earlier, I said that, in terms of the quality of performance, all our companies are performing extremely well compared with the artistic situation a few years ago. They are performing at the top of their game and are receiving fantastic reviews. We are pleased about that and want it to continue.
Thank you. I appreciate that the minister does not want to comment on individual decisions, but it is not a question of the quality of the musicians or the orchestra; it is a question of Scotland’s capacity to support the number of orchestras it has and the idea of professional musicianship as a full-time career. I am surprised that the minister is not willing to talk publicly about her regret at the impact that this situation will have on Scotland’s cultural scene. It is not just the impact on Scottish Opera, which I am absolutely convinced it will have an impact on, but the impact on musicians’ ability to pursue a livelihood in music in Scotland. It is to be deeply regretted.
I am not going to talk down Scottish Opera, even though you are inviting me to do so.
Far from it; I am talking about Scotland’s capacity to sustain several full-time orchestras.
If you look at the experience of other orchestras, including those in other countries, you will find that many work similarly to how Scottish Opera will work—and they produce good-quality performances, which is what we expect Scottish Opera to continue to do.
The National Library of Scotland has had a big cut in its purchase grant—from £1.3 million to £300,000. In the grand scheme of things that might not seem the most important budget grant, but is the minister aware of the effect that it will have on the National Library’s capacity to continue in its role?
You are right to say that, compared with other budgets, it does not seem a large cash reduction but the impact of such a cut can be significant. That is one of the things that we have had to discuss with all organisations—everyone has had to take some reduction; we will continue to discuss matters to see what the impact is. In the case of the National Library, we have attempted to be responsive to its needs by looking at its maintenance and capital—and I think we have addressed a roofing issue that was causing particular difficulty.
That is the point I am making with regard to Scottish Opera and the National Library of Scotland. I would be concerned if these cuts led to a fundamental change in the way companies operate and, therefore, in the policy context in which they operate. A cut of this nature to the National Library, for example, might change its strategy in terms of the collection of books and so on. I am anxious to know whether the minister is aware of that. It is not simply a question of managing within their means; it is a question of perhaps having to change their priorities and therefore having to gain ministerial approval for such change.
In which case they would obviously have those discussions with us. We are in a position that is not of our choosing. We did not want to administer cuts of 6.7 per cent or, indeed, the reduced level of 4 per cent for the collections. We have tried to protect the National Library and others from the full brunt of the 6.7 per cent reduction in our budget, but this is not a position of our choosing. We must wake up to the fact that, across all our portfolios, every part of Scotland will have to think about doing things differently and prioritise what is needed. They will also have to rethink how they organise themselves and do things. That is the reality of where we are. I wish we were somewhere different but we are going to have to administer the Westminster cuts, and that is what we are doing. However, we are trying to do it in a way that is sensitive to the organisations that we deal with.
One of the Government’s commitments, which is not a budgetary commitment, is to guarantee in law the right of Gaelic-medium education where parental demand exists. Until recently, the minister and her colleagues have suggested in reply to questions that it is still a commitment and that it will happen, but it is now quite clear that it will not happen before the end of the parliamentary session. It was a straightforward commitment—not necessarily an expense, although expense might be related to it. Why has the Government not delivered on it?
As part of our commitment to Gaelic we have initiated and delivered a number of things. We asked Bòrd na Gàidhlig, the board that was set up by the Parliament, to look after and promote the interests of Gaelic. I remember sitting with Ken Macintosh, discussing the bill and having the debate about whether it should be just about the protection of Gaelic or about the promotion of Gaelic. In producing the Gaelic action plan, Bòrd na Gàidhlig told us that the legislative support for parents is not a priority at this time. We could either take the advice of the experts, Bòrd na Gàidhlig, or we could ignore them. We chose to accept the advice of Bòrd na Gàidhlig, which is why we have accepted the recommendations of the Gaelic action plan.
You are suggesting that you did not deliver on that promise because Bòrd na Gàidhlig advised you that it should not be a priority.
At this time. If the advice had been that it was a priority for delivery this year or last year, that would have been in the action plan. It was not in the action plan as an immediate priority. It is an area in which we will continue to investigate the appropriate time for development and support. The challenges that local authorities face because of the financial settlement that they have received, despite again being protected, to which the member may have heard the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning refer in Parliament recently, mean that this particular challenge may not be appropriate at this time. It might have been appropriate a few years ago, but times and circumstances have changed and we have acknowledged that.
Finally, I want to ask about jobs. Have you calculated the impact of the budget settlement on jobs in your portfolio, particularly across culture, Gaelic and other areas? There are a number of cuts that you must implement or pass on. Have you estimated how many jobs will be lost as a result?
As I have already indicated, one of the pressures that we face is the fact that we work with a number of independent organisations—the companies and collections—a lot of whose expenditure is on staff, so we are conscious of the impact of the budget on staffing. That is partly why, instead of carrying out the cuts that the Westminster Government required last year, we deferred them until 2011-12 to give more time for planning. A number of the organisations have embarked on either voluntary severance or early retirement schemes. You will have heard the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth talk about the Government’s desire to be flexible in relation to future working practices so that—if we can come to agreement with the unions on this—we can continue with a policy of no compulsory redundancies in the organisations for which we are responsible. That is a huge comparative advantage for workers in Scotland over workers in, for example, England; however, it will take everybody working together to deliver that.
I appreciate—
Hold on a second—you said “finally”. You have already had eight questions.
I meant “finally” on the issue of jobs.
Okay. Can you keep it tight?
I appreciate the minister’s response, but I am not sure that I accept the line about planning. She suggested that, last year, some decisions were taken with the object of securing organisations’ ability to plan for the future, but the fact that we have only a one-year budget—as the minister knows, that issue has been raised repeatedly, including in evidence—does not allow them to plan.
I am not sure that the member understands that the policy is to offer voluntary redundancy or early retirement, which reflects individuals’ choice, rather than targets that organisations have set. Currently, there are on-going voluntary severance programmes; I cannot provide a definitive number, because the programmes are still in progress. The point is that we are talking not about targets that must be met but about opportunities for which people must volunteer. That is an important legal distinction.
I asked not about targets but about impact.
We do not know the impact because the programmes are on-going. People knew that there would be difficulties this year because last year we deferred the cuts, but at least they knew what was going to happen. Some organisations, such as Historic Scotland, took the opportunity to embark on the process last year. Linda Ellison can explain what Historic Scotland has done.
Historic Scotland has been looking at restructuring. Previously, we operated in three distinct areas, to some extent, but we have brought together our operations much more as a corporate organisation. We have talked about focusing on the Government’s priorities, looking at how we achieve our objectives and being much clearer about how we do that. When embarking on that discussion with the organisation, we made people aware that, during a period of change, there is an opportunity for them to take early retirement or early severance, if they wish. The process is on-going—we still do not have finalised numbers—but we started it in the current year because we suspected that we would be moving into a climate in which we would have to be careful about our future funding and commitments.
We will continue discussions with all the organisations with which we work. Many people who are passionate about and involved in their work for the collections and companies are low paid relative to other parts of the sector but are loyal to their organisations. We are sensitive to their needs and to what the process will mean for the organisations.
I appreciate that; I am sure that you are sensitive to the needs of the people who work in the sector. However, the Government’s core purpose is to support the economy. That applies even to the area of culture. Although you also have a range of cultural objectives, I would have thought that one of your department’s key focuses would be on how it contributes to and impacts on the economy.
Again, I reflect that we are having to come to these decisions as a consequence of decisions that were made by the previous Westminster Government in particular. The numbers will be not be nearly as high as the numbers in other areas where there are larger head counts. I refer you to the employment statistics that are produced—I think that some might be due shortly. Scotland has maintained quite high employment levels compared with other parts of the country, both historically and, interestingly, during the recession.
I want to ask Linda Ellison a general question on voluntary severance and early retirement schemes. The discussions that I have had with my local police board, my local council and others suggest that, although shedding jobs through voluntary severance and early retirement might save some costs in the medium term, if what we are looking for is short-term cost savings, those schemes will not necessarily provide that. In fact, they can cost more money in the short term. Is that a fair reflection of the situation?
That is a reasonable assessment. We want to have sustainable organisations going forward and, given where we are, that means that we have to ensure that things are planned for on an on-going basis. You are correct. In many cases, there is an up-front cost for voluntary severance. Indeed, part of the arts budget in the current financial year has supported some of the programmes that have started this year, to help to ensure that the right decisions can be made.
I recognise what you are describing. We are trying to take out some management layers but, over time, we are also saying to people, “If you want to stay with Historic Scotland, we will do our utmost to keep you,” and we are focusing on other bits of the business where we believe that we can create efficiencies. We are focusing very much on administration costs and believe that we can make some reductions there as well as through shared service arrangements and partnership working. Our focus is on doing our best to keep those who want to stay with Historic Scotland.
Thanks very much for that.
Thank you very much. That brings this part of the meeting to a close. I thank the minister and her officials for their attendance.
I welcome Mike Russell MSP, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning. With him, from the Scottish Government, are Colin MacLean, director for learning; Andrew Scott, director for lifelong learning; and Sarah Smith, director for children, young people and social care. I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.
Thank you. You will have noticed that, in cash terms, the Scottish budget will be cut by £1.3 billion next year and the education budget will be reduced by £237.9 million. The scale of those cuts is unprecedented and poses a significant challenge both to the delivery of public services in Scotland and to economic recovery. The Government has worked hard to balance the budget across all portfolios and we have shown leadership in preparing Scotland for the tough choices that must follow.
The draft budget document and ministerial guidance state that student maintenance support and student numbers will be maintained at current levels. Why, therefore, has the Student Awards Agency for Scotland budget line for tuition fee payments made to institutions and grants and bursaries made to students fallen by £14 million for the financial year 2011-12?
There is one material change of which you will be aware. I have, reluctantly, decided to transfer the travel costs that students can recoup from grant to loan. There are no travel costs payable south of the border. That will result in a very small increased payback from students. It has been necessary to look at every single item, and that is one item that I decided that we had to and should change.
The total SAAS funding will fall by £18 million, from £534.6 million to £516.6 million. That amount of £18 million comprises two things. First, there is a £4 million reduction in something called annually managed expenditure—a series of essentially technical charges that are calculated for us by the Office for National Statistics and the Treasury. The other, more substantial change is a reduction of £14 million in our departmental expenditure limit budget. That change comes about substantially because we are moving from a system of grants for travel expenses to increases in student loans. What scores in the budget is a reduction of £20 million brought about by the fact that we are paying only the resource accounting and budgeting charge on the new loan provision. In fact, we have reduced the DEL budget by only £14 million. The reason for that is that we have more higher national diploma students than we had previously, and they attract a higher rate of student support. We are also attracting students who score better in the means test than previously. That is a consequence of the recession—people are poorer than they were, so they are qualifying for more student support.
What is the £14 million reduction in the DEL figure as a percentage?
I do not have the percentage in my head, but it is £14 million out of £534.6 million.
That is about 2.5 per cent.
Yes.
Okay. The Scottish Government has outlined a number of priorities, one of which is to deliver qualifications that develop the skills and capabilities that are required for entry to and progress in the labour market. How does the new budget assist that priority?
It does that in a number of ways. First, although there is a reduction in college funding, the colleges have agreed to provide the same number of places, so we are able to offer and secure that type of training through our very hard-working college sector, which is very positive. Secondly, there is the role of Skills Development Scotland, which is also endeavouring to provide as many places as it can, of the various types of place that it delivers, within the restrictions that exist. That number has not yet been set, but I am ambitious for it to reach previous years’ targets. That discussion is taking place.
Time is short and we have many questions to ask, so I open it up to other members.
Can I ask specifically about the place of school-college partnerships in the budget? Does ministerial guidance affect those?
School-college partnerships are valuable, but there has been an element of double funding in those partnerships whereby funding has gone to schools and to colleges essentially for the same number of young people. We have tried to strip that out in the budget. It is always necessary to keep looking at budgets and find out whether we can do that. I suspect that, regrettably, there will be a reduction in some school-college partnerships simply because of the financial pressure, but many will be retained, and we are keen to ensure that they are retained.
Is there anything that colleges can do to make their courses more efficient, while maintaining the quality of teaching?
We are constantly in discussion with the college and university sectors about how there can be maximum efficiency. The issue of ensuring that there is maximum efficiency will undoubtedly arise in the green paper on the higher education sector. As Dr Allan is aware, that is of course never an absolute, but there is constant pressure to ensure that it happens.
The college principals have recently been working with Russel Griggs on how they might arrange their activities more efficiently in the future. They have been talking to us about it and have been talking among themselves about it. It is a continual topic for debate among them now. They believe that, by collaboration, they can organise their activities more efficiently than they do at present. Indeed, when we spoke to them during the period prior to the budget about how they might maintain student numbers, they were confident that they could improve their efficiency in that regard.
The budget talks about reducing and repurposing funding for other strategic initiatives. Can you say which strategic initiatives you are thinking of and what impact that will have?
There are a number of examples where we have thought very hard about what we want to achieve and then have focused our resource. For example, in the agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, we ensure that we continue to reduce the number of unemployed teachers and that we provide opportunities for post-probationary teachers. The repurposing is also very clearly seen in the new fund for the early years. Perhaps Sarah Smith would like to say a word or two about that.
The commitment to the early years framework was repeated in the recent agreement with COSLA, along with the other two social frameworks. As part of the approach that we have taken to making the reductions that we needed to make but focusing on priorities, we have drawn together an additional £5 million to be put into an early years and early intervention fund, which we are directing at the voluntary sector because we feel that, through the third sector, we can best reach the people who are going to have needs in these difficult times. We will issue guidance shortly on the criteria and how we will do that.
How will the horizon fund be affected by budget proposals, particularly those relating to spend-to-save initiatives?
I will ask Dr Scott to say a word about this in a moment, but there has been a lot of discussion about the horizon fund over the past year; indeed, it arose during the discussion of the tripartite advisory group by the committee some weeks ago. The horizon fund has been a very useful innovation but, as the university sector faces up to the changes, which are not simply budget-driven changes but changes that are taking place in the definition of what the state’s responsibility is in higher education—at least, south of the border, although I do not think that our definition needs to change—there will be a need for universities in particular to change. Part of the horizon fund needs to be refocused to allow that type of change to take place, and that is what we have said to the Scottish funding council.
I have very little to add to that. It is for the funding council to come to a view on how it wants to spend the horizon fund within the terms of the guidance letter that we issued. We have asked the funding council to think about how it might help institutions, particularly smaller institutions, to adjust to a more stringent financial climate.
I would like to ask about capital. I visited Motherwell College a couple of weeks ago. Obviously, we have had a very good period of capital investment in our colleges, but it is clear that we are now facing a very difficult period. The individual budget lines for capital funding for further education colleges and higher education institutions have been merged for 2011-12; I think that they have been merged since the 2010-11 budget. Why have they been merged? How will capital funding be prioritised between the further and higher education sectors? I do not think that the ministerial guidance letter made that clear.
There is a severe reduction in capital, which is much more severe than anybody expected, and it will cause real problems. I am happy to pay tribute to the previous Administration and the current Administration for the investment that they have made in the college and university sectors, but that ambition—I was about to say “generosity”, but that is not the right word—is about to be reduced.
I know that you always try to be very helpful to me. Given the level of capital investment that was undertaken by the previous Administration and continued by the current Administration, I hope that the capital projects that most badly needed to be addressed were addressed in the previous decade. That might be one blessing for us at this time.
I think that the commitments that have already been entered into will be honoured. I do not see them coming to an end. The question arises for the colleges—I think that there are three in particular—that have not yet submitted their final business case or had it approved. Dr Scott might want to add to that.
Yes. When we have been thinking about the budget, we have arranged things in such a way that all the existing commitments that we have made can be finished off. That is the consequence of the capital maintenance budgets. Last year, the funding council funded more than £60 million of capital maintenance in the sector. Next year, the figure will be around half of that, and the colleges at Kilmarnock and Inverness and the new campus Glasgow project will all have to go into the funding mechanism.
I should point out that none of those projects has a business case that is in front of the funding council.
Not for the colleges, no.
Absolutely. In my letter at the end of August approving the merger of the Glasgow colleges, I made it clear that a new business case needs to be produced for the new campus Glasgow. I made it clear that the previous desire to build a £300 million all-singing, all-dancing campus was no longer affordable in the current times. I am confident that there will be investment in that estate, as that is required. However, we need to see the business case. My letter also suggested that the business case should be produced in the first half of next year because, although the plans will require to be recast substantially, I am sure that there will be investment and that that will happen within the timescale that I anticipated in August when I wrote that letter.
On finance, it has been said that dealing with a one-year budget makes it more difficult for people to plan ahead. How are colleges and higher education institutions able to plan effectively for capital investment projects when they are dealing with a one-year budget? In reality, does your department or the funding council talk beyond that, even though, in black-and-white terms, we have a one-year budget? How does that work in taking forward capital investment?
The issue of a three-year budget is above my pay grade. The debate on that took place last week and I am sure that there is more to be said about it. However, there will of course be regular dialogue between my officials and colleges and universities about the academic year budgeting. Clearly, the tap will not be turned off at an arbitrary date, and it would be wrong to suggest otherwise.
I have a question about some of the challenges for SDS and the national training programmes. Will any of the traditional training programmes or modern apprenticeships be affected by the reduced budget for SDS in 2011-12?
SDS has still to conclude the exact numbers that it can and will deliver. However, I made it clear in my opening remarks and in answering earlier questions that I am ambitious and I expect SDS to be ambitious. At present, we are looking at a total of 34,500 training places. There will continue to be a demand and we will try to meet it. The agreement that we made with the principals of universities and colleges makes a commitment to retaining a number of places. I expect SDS to work hard to maintain the number of training places.
This year’s training offer includes 5,000 flexible training opportunities and quite a lot of help for the unemployed through training for work and get ready for work—there are 14,500 opportunities there. We hope that those can be continued for the foreseeable future.
At its evidence session on the budget yesterday, the Equal Opportunities Committee heard it suggested that, instead of being protected and improved, training opportunities and support, such as redundancy packages, for unemployed people might well be disproportionately affected. How will the Scottish Government protect and improve such aspects?
We have shown this in our activity right across the portfolios but, speaking for myself, I have very much worked on the principle that those who have least should not have less. Indeed, that has been very much at the centre of my thinking since I started on this process. For example, we have protected places for learning in colleges and universities; we are trying to protect as much as we can in school education; and, as we have indicated, we are trying to protect SDS.
I am concerned that those who are furthest away from the job market will get even further away. Obviously, there are challenges in that respect.
As we know, those who suffered unemployment in the 1980s very often found themselves in a dead place—I was going to say spiral; if only it were as positive as that—and that had generational effects. We are conscious of that risk and are certainly focused on and working very hard to try to change the situation.
One of the success stories is the way in which the colleges and SDS have worked together on some of these issues—indeed, Motherwell College is an excellent example of that—but will the budget challenges that both face affect the skills agenda and therefore sustainable economic growth?
It is wrong to say that there will be no effect, but I want to minimise that effect through the good will and working together of all players. The situation is difficult, but the positive engagement that we have had with college and university principals on delivering the same number of places gives me hope for the whole sector. These are not normal times but if, in abnormal times, we are able to work as hard as this, we will, I hope, protect those who need most protection and work our way through.
In light of the very hard work that the committee has put into the reform of the children’s hearings system and the new systems coming into place, will the small reduction in the Scottish Children Reporter’s Administration budget have an effect?
No, it is perfectly manageable. Again, it is a case of doing as much for less. I have been assured by the SCRA and its effective leadership that the organisation will work as hard as ever, and those people have a great commitment to what they do.
The budget for the national continuing professional development team and school leadership projects will be cut by two thirds to £1.2 million. On 19 November the Times Educational Supplement Scotland suggested that local authority CPD budgets would also be cut. How crucial is that budget line to the quality of CPD and school leadership in Scotland?
The cut relates to the money given to the universities as compensation for the cut in teacher training places. We have had to remove that money; after all, you cannot go on paying people compensation every year and we have certainly not been able to do so this year.
Does the teacher workforce planning group still meet and, if so, did it recommend that teacher training numbers be kept at the reduced level?
Yes, the group still meets. It was felt that, given the projected numbers of teachers in authorities—we have seen those figures today—probationer numbers needed to be kept down for at least another year. We will take a view next year on how to balance the number of people leaving and the number required to come in.
How does that sit alongside the commitment to maintain either teacher numbers or the pupil-to-teacher ratio?
The commitment that I have made to COSLA—I am sure that you have read the documentation, so you will know what that commitment—
No.
You have read the documentation, Mr Macintosh?
The documentation? Sorry—yes, I have.
Good, because I thought for a moment that you were denying that you had done so.
However, if the minister is offering to share all the documentation—
No, I am offering to share the public documentation. I am glad that you have read it, because otherwise it will take me a long time to explain what it says. Let me try.
It is obviously making a difference to teacher numbers, which I think we will return to. I was asking specifically about teacher training.
Yes.
The cut in the education budget, however, seems to be 10.3 per cent or thereabouts.
No.
It is not. What is the general cut? Other than the justice budget, which has been cut by about 10.4 per cent, education appears to be the department that will have the biggest cut of all. Is that the case or is somebody else worse off?
You are not seeing the full picture. I will help you to see it. The education budget has two parts. One part is college, university and other costs, which include children’s costs. That is under my control in the sense that I can adjust that budget. The other part, which is almost two thirds of the money that we spend on education—it is certainly well over half and approaches two thirds—is the money that goes into the local government settlement. The reduction in that will be lower than the reduction in my budget. The reduction in the education budget across the board—we will work out the figure for you—is broadly the average.
Leaving aside the local government settlement, to which we will return—
I cannot leave it aside, because a substantial part of it is for education.
I certainly do not wish to leave it aside either; I just believe that other committee members will return to the subject. I will ask about the budget that is under your control at the centre. Am I right in thinking that your direct budget has had the highest or the second highest cut or fall?
I do not produce such league tables; I consider the resources that I have and try to live within the allocations that I will receive. I also argue for and try to secure changes in those allocations. It is up to you to publish, as I am sure that you will, a league table of those who have the least and the most. I have tried to spend within the resources that I have. My particular difficulty is that a substantial proportion of my budget is not under my direct control.
The budget that Mr Russell controls directly will reduce by just over 10 per cent in real terms but, if we take account of the money that local authorities spend on children’s services, employability and school education, the reduction is much smaller, so the overall figure is much less than 10 per cent.
As I said, we will return to that. The figure is more than 10 per cent. Is any budget worse off than education?
As I said, you must work that out.
It is more a question of fact.
You must work it out. I do not know—I do not produce such figures. I do not sit working that out. I am rather busy trying to work on education. If you want to work out those figures, please do.
I appreciate that such decisions are difficult but, if government is all about priorities—it is clear that the Government has prioritised some matters—and if the average cut is 6.7 per cent but the cut in your part of the education budget is more than 10 per cent, that appears not to be a priority.
No, that is not the case, but if that is the inference that you draw, please draw it.
The SQA budget line seems to drop from £8.3 million to £5.3 million. Will you explain that? Other money will go to qualifications, but you are well aware of the difficulties that we had with exams and the SQA in the past.
You and I were both members of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee at that time.
Absolutely. I am sure that you as the cabinet secretary would like to reassure the committee and others that such a budget cut is manageable.
I am sure that you do not wish to imply that a cut in resources caused the SQA problem in 2000. You and I know that that was not the case—we were members of the committee that conducted an inquiry into that. Such an implication would be unfortunate and I am sure that you do not wish to make it.
You cited reductions of 10.3 per cent and 6.7 per cent. The 6.7 per cent is in cash terms and the 10.3 per cent is in real terms, so you are not comparing similar figures.
I did not refer to 10.3 per cent—I asked about a fall from £8.3 million to £5.3 million.
Colin MacLean was referring to a previous question.
Earlier, you said that the education budget would reduce by 10.3 per cent and that the average reduction was 6.7 per cent, but that was a cash average, whereas the 10.3 per cent is in real terms.
I ask for comparable figures. If 6.7 per cent is the average in cash terms, what is the average real-terms cut?
I do not have that information.
We will write to you with whatever information we can provide.
Am I right in thinking that the figure is above 10 per cent?
I have no idea.
We will write with figures.
The pay budget of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education will be cut from £12 million to £10.5 million. Does that reflect reduced staff numbers?
There are two factors in that. One is that one of the child protection inspection teams is moving from HMIE to another agency, which is being set up, and the funding for that team is moving with it. That accounts for part of the reduction—the funding is just moving elsewhere in Government. Secondly, there is a reduction in overall inspection activity in line with other scrutiny bodies.
On the numbers, what will the staff loss be to HMIE as an on-going organisation?
I do not know. We can ask the chief inspector to write to you on that.
I want to double-check something. In the safer children, stronger families budget line, there are a couple of reductions against what is overall a rising budget. One is at level 4 on child protection, and another is under getting it right for every child—both headings have a reduction. What does the reduction mean, particularly in child protection?
We must remember that GIRFEC is moving from the intensive pilot to roll-out stage, so it is not surprising that the budget may change. Sarah Smith might like to deal with the child protection budget.
The child protection budget line refers to the small budget that we hold at the centre. The budget that local authorities, health boards and the police spend on child protection is far bigger than the central budget and is not directly affected by it.
That is good. Thank you.
Cabinet secretary, there are a number of budget lines for research and training that are intended to improve practice. They include social services centres of excellence, improving delivery and workforce development. Those budgets are declining by 38 per cent from £13.5 million to £8.3 million. Has the Government assessed what the impact of those cuts will be on efforts to improve front-line practice?
I will deal with them separately because they deal with a variety of issues. I ask Sarah Smith to respond to the question whether there has been an assessment of the impact on front-line social work services of a reduction in the training budget.
In making the budget proposals for next year, we have focused on early years and early intervention. In particular, we have protected the budget lines that we give directly to the voluntary sector. That includes, for example, the budget lines for the Family Fund trust that supports families with disabled children and other voluntary organisation budget lines, such as the unified voluntary sector fund.
We also look for opportunities to involve the third sector and others in promoting good practice. For example, you mentioned the substantial fall in the workforce development budget, which reduces from £2.62 million to £0.89 million. The £1.73 million cut is due to a transfer of some functions to the Scottish Social Services Council. That is a body that we believe will do the job in a different way; it is about learning networks and workforce development.
It is interesting that, in contrast, the unified voluntary sector fund is increasing by about 44 per cent. In fact, it is significantly more than that: the entire positive futures budget increases by 44 per cent, but the unified voluntary sector fund is increasing by 70 per cent. Will you explain what that fund does and why, during a time of great financial difficulty, its budget is increasing so substantially?
The title of the level 4 budget is part of the problem. The unified voluntary sector fund will stay level at £7 million next year; we have rolled over the funding. However, because we did not have a separate line for it, we have put into that line the new money—the £5 million—that we are providing for the early years early intervention fund. For future reference, we will separate out those two funds to make it clearer for the committee. It was because the early intervention fund was a new thing that we put the additional £5 million in that line.
That would be of interest.
I want to pick up on two things that were mentioned. In her previous answer, Sarah Smith said that she was trying to protect budget lines for the voluntary sector and the deputy convener just asked a question about the voluntary sector fund. What is the attitude towards trying to protect the voluntary sector, if I can put it that way? We all know from experience in our areas and elsewhere of the excellent work that the sector does, how precarious the futures of many of those organisations can be and how reliant they are on some of the funding that comes from Government, either directly or indirectly through local authorities. Will you tell us how that plays through when you consider your budget?
As Sarah Smith indicated, it plays through quite well. For example, there is a commitment to ensure that the new £5 million early years fund will go through the voluntary sector. I believe strongly that the voluntary sector can sometimes deliver better than Government and might reach the parts that Government does not reach, if I may put it that way. That is the positive nature of the arrangement.
I will move from the voluntary sector to the school buildings programme. I refer you to line 76 of the level 4 figures: is the £20 million for schools for the future for those schools that have already been announced? When will work on the remaining schools be announced?
The work on schools that have been announced will go ahead; we are in discussions with the authorities and the Scottish Futures Trust about how that will be managed and the timing of the individual projects.
There is a determination to ensure that what we have announced will stay in the budget. That is absolutely true.
Minister, you are looking first at the schools that are in the worst condition. If they all happen to be in same geographic area, how will that work?
The one caveat is whether a local authority has deliberately ignored the state of its school buildings. I am not sure that we should reward bad behaviour, but I do not want pupils to be in unsuitable schools.
Will a particular NPD scheme be used for future projects or will it vary from project to project?
The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth will bring forward those details as required. He will want to make sure that the scheme that is used is cost effective and does not, in any sense, repeat the errors of the past.
I will move on to young offenders. A number of the budget lines relating to young offenders have been reduced, such as those for high risk, transition, secure care and alternatives, and preventing offending by young people. They include programmes on alternatives to custody, improving the secure estate and alternatives to the secure estate, and delivering better outcomes for children who are at risk of offending or who are offending. That budget has been reduced from £7.2 million to £5 million. Does that represent a lower priority for those areas? Is it considered to be a part of the early intervention agenda, or is the focus on intervention in the early years only?
We deliberately talk about early years and early intervention, and we see early intervention as broader than early years. It is about intervening as soon as we possibly can. In that situation, the budgets are directed towards pilots of working with young people—often older young people—on diversions from crime and offending behaviour. Some of the committee might be aware of the whole system’s approach in Grampian, where, since May, we have been looking at care and diversions from offending for older children. That has managed to reduce referrals to the children’s reporter by 50 per cent.
That is quite reassuring. We would be concerned if, in response to what I accept is a difficult financial situation, Government ministers were inclined to give up on some of the programmes that will bear fruit in the longer term, such as the preventive work that the Finance Committee has been considering.
I will. As with CPD, there is a range of budgets. One of the problems that we face when we get to level 4 detail is the fact that a lot of the headings need further refinement and we need to understand how money is moved from one place to another as some projects come to an end and others start up. A range of budget lines will meet literacy and numeracy costs, and they will pick up the clear intentions of the literacy action plan. We are confident that that will be delivered from within a range of budget lines, including adult literacy and numeracy programme budget lines and a number of others.
Most of the expenditure for literacy and numeracy comes from elsewhere. The adult literacy and numeracy programme budget is a relatively small one that enables us to support the implementation of the strategy and to give attention to the various hotspots that occur around Scotland.
Can you pull together for the committee the different budget lines where we might find details of literacy and numeracy funding?
I am happy to give you an analysis of where we are. A great deal of the work under the action plan is focused on the work of delivery partners, rather than simply on what central Government is doing.
I wish to ask about some particular aspects of the COSLA agreement—I will go through them separately.
Your briefing must be erroneous—I do not think that it came from us.
Turning to the next issue, under the agreement there is a commitment between you and COSLA to reduce teacher unemployment. The committee is interested in the guarantee of jobs for probationers in the 2011 cohort. Will that disadvantage probationer teachers who qualified before 2011?
No, because the commitment is also to continue to reduce, or eat into, teacher unemployment. I have seen that claim by the unions, and I am pretty surprised that the unions are taking that attitude. I have said that publicly before. What will happen will be only good news for reducing teacher unemployment and rectifying a situation that, as I have said at this committee and elsewhere, has given me considerable worry.
The COSLA-Scottish Government agreement contains some proposals that will go to the SNCT—the Scottish negotiating committee for teachers. Can you give us some details about that? Will that pre-empt the review of the McCrone settlement, which is due to report in June 2011? I invite you to comment specifically on the impact that that will have on the negotiating process for teachers’ pay, on increased contact time for probationers, on CPD and on the issue around supply teachers being paid on point 1 of the scale, and only for the hours worked. I have received a lot of letters from supply teachers who are now on point 2 and who are obviously worried about what might happen.
I, too, have had representations on your final point. There needs to be discussion of that issue under the SNCT framework, and of whether there are other ways to achieve what has been set out. That is also covered in the COSLA agreement—if there are other things that can be brought to bear that would have the same effect, they need to be considered.
A quick calculation based on the figures that we received this morning shows that, since 2003, we have lost 70,194 pupils from the system. One startling figure is that 40,794 of those were in the primary sector. We have talked a great deal about this year and next year, but how are we planning ahead as regards teacher numbers and teacher experience given the reduced numbers in the system?
There are a range of issues, including the Donaldson review and how we train teachers, teachers’ terms and conditions, and the curriculum for excellence, which is the big idea in Scottish education and is the right thing to do. You have identified a real issue. With some difficult decisions, I have been trying to adjust the workforce to take account of that. I have been much attacked for doing so, but I hope that the outcomes are beginning to become clear.
The Government is moving from a focus on class sizes to a focus on the pupil-to-teacher ratio, which you are promising to maintain. At what level will you maintain it?
The agreement makes clear that in primaries 1 to 3 we will maintain it at this year’s level, as recorded in the figures that members have. However, you go a step too far in your interpretation. I am not saying that we are moving to a focus on the pupil-to-teacher ratio—I am saying that the figure on which we have agreed is the best figure at this stage for maintaining the progress that we have made. Both the unions and I were convinced of that, so we have agreed the figure with COSLA.
I asked my question because, as you know, the figures are out today and show an increase in the ratio from 13.2 to 13.3.
That is 0.1 per cent, which is within the statistical margin of error.
It is not exactly going in the right direction, is it? It is hardly a fantastic start.
The progress that we have made on class sizes, based on the agreement that I reached with COSLA, is significant. I am sure that you would have wanted to congratulate me on that, had we not been sidetracked on to other matters. We have met the terms of our agreement with COSLA; I am now trying to stabilise that. COSLA and I believe that the best way of doing so is to emphasise the figure for the pupil-teacher ratio. We will do that. I am talking about the figure for primaries 1 to 3.
I will leave aside my comments on class sizes, because I do not think that we will get immediate agreement on that issue.
No. I do not agree with that.
Can you explain that? If education accounts for just under 40 per cent of the local authority settlement, reductions are not allowed in relation to police numbers and the council tax is frozen, surely every other part of the settlement has to take a greater share of the cut.
No. The council tax freeze is fully compensated for and additional resource is provided for teacher numbers, so I do not accept your assertion, which I think is an inaccurate reading of the situation.
I am sorry, but can you explain that one to me one more time, just for the record?
I explained it to you a second ago. Unless you have the attention span of a goldfish, you would remember it. I am sorry, but I have told you entirely clearly that there is a commitment fully to fund the council tax situation, there is an agreement on police numbers, and additional money—over and above the settlement—is coming in for teacher numbers. In those circumstances, the cut is proportionately significantly less—in my view, it would not be seen as disproportionate.
As part of the process of budget scrutiny, I would like absolute accuracy on the figures. Including the additional resources that you referred to, what is the overall cut affecting local authorities?
It is 2.6 per cent if a council signs up; it will be 6.4 per cent if a council does not sign up—the councils that seem most unwilling to sign up at the moment are Labour-controlled authorities.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the cut in a council’s budget is 2.6 per cent. That figure includes the money for the freeze in council tax and police numbers. If you freeze the council tax and police numbers, are you suggesting that resources for teachers will be cut by only 2.6 per cent?
I am suggesting that there is no disproportionate cut to education, which is what you asked me about. There is no disproportionate cut to education—there does not need to be.
I am sorry, but that does not make any sense.
I am sorry that I am unable to make any sense to you. I will continue to answer in the same way, because these are the facts.
If you are going to reduce the money that goes to local authorities, they will have less money to work with, but they will have to maintain police numbers and a council tax freeze, so the other parts of the budget must take a bigger cut.
No. You would have to bring me a formula that contained the size of the police numbers commitment and the size of any council tax commitment. Of course, maintaining the council tax freeze will not in itself necessarily cost anything, except the money that is already there for compensation, so I do not accept your argument—I think that it is fallacious.
I think that we will disagree on that, Mr Russell—as is often the case.
These are very difficult times. I do not want to be partisan about this—it would be unlike me—but I point out that the wrecking of the public finances that was undertaken by Mr Macintosh’s party over a period of time, the very difficult decisions that the new coalition is taking, and the fact that it has taken the wrong decisions about the depth and speed of cuts create a very difficult situation for a Government that is not in full control of its own finances. Were the Calman commission’s proposals to be implemented in full—although they now appear to be Calman minus—they would still not help. We need full fiscal autonomy if we are to be in charge of our resources. Short of that, we will have to take some very difficult decisions, which require everybody’s involvement. On the points that the local authorities wish to make, we agree that, without a doubt, the changes are difficult. I entirely agree that they are difficult. However, I would be very surprised if teachers thought that they should be immune from them.
Before Mr Swinney’s statement, I met Unison representatives from North Ayrshire and asked them what level of cut they expected local authorities to receive in 2011-12. They said 20 per cent; in fact, it was 2.6 per cent.
They had received too many e-mails from people telling them that the world was going to fall on their heads.
There is a quite severe financial penalty for failure on this occasion. It is up to councils whether or not they want to suffer that penalty.
Can you spell out a couple of the financial aspects? What additional money has gone into the deal that specifically relates to teacher employment, over and above the funding for the council tax freeze, the extra police and anything else that is wrapped up in all of that?
Fortuitously, with regard to employment, we can tell pretty quickly if there are not 2,800 opportunities—which is what we are talking about—and if people are not going into posts.
I will go back to the specific changes that might be made to teachers’ terms and conditions. Although we all accept that it is reasonable to review McCrone after 10 years, of slight concern is how some of the discussions about people’s terms and conditions in such an important profession have gone on.
As the proposals are for negotiation—we have indicated that they are on the table, supported by both sides—it would be proper for that discussion to take place during the negotiations that have to reach a conclusion. We have said quite clearly—COSLA has been particularly strong on this—that COSLA needs the effect that it anticipates from the proposals, although it is only an estimate, in order to balance the books. If the proposals are not agreed, COSLA would need other things to make an equivalent financial contribution. We should allow the negotiations to take place.
That is all very well, but my question was factual. How long would it have taken for salary conservation to work its way through the system if you were not considering getting rid of it in the short term?
That information needs to go to the negotiations before it is released more widely. I am not averse to letting members have it, but we should pause first and allow negotiation to take place in the tripartite group rather than doing anything else.
I will not pursue other questions that I intended to ask on this subject because of your earlier answer. However, I think that my question on salary conservation is quite factual and that you can give the committee an indication of whether it would have worked its way through the system in three or four years anyway, or whether, as some commentators have said, it would likely take nearer to 10 or 20 years to go through the system. Can you give us an indication on that?
The information is held by individual local authorities rather than by us. You know that I am not trying to be difficult on this issue. I will reflect on what I can provide in terms of where we are and what we know or what information we hold. We are talking about a proposal from individual local authorities, so I want to be cautious about that. However, I will reflect on the matter in a positive vein.
I am content with that, convener.
I note the proposal to freeze entry into the chartered teacher scheme. Can you say any more about how the Government intends to maintain experienced teachers in the classroom and the importance of that approach in the budget?
There is a very strong cohort of experienced teachers. We know, because of the post-probationer issue, that there are teachers who are very keen to get in there to get experience. The idea of the chartered teacher scheme was to provide a career route that was an alternative to the promoted route. I think that we can agree that teachers’ salaries have improved since the chartered teacher scheme was proposed, so the scheme may well not be required as much as it was. The jury is out. We should let the review of McCrone consider that and other issues. All I am saying for this coming year is that, for cost reasons, it is proposed that, regrettably, we do not continue to recruit to the scheme. That proposal will go into the SNCT negotiations.
Ken Macintosh wants to ask one more infinitesimally small question.
It is a simple matter of clarification. In the minister’s answers to Margaret Smith’s questions, I think that he referred to £15 million of new money for teacher employment. Is that the money that is on the table for negotiation?
No, that is the sum that we have agreed to add to the settlement specifically for teacher employment. Of course, the sums being negotiated by councils, in terms of the effect of the negotiation on teachers’ terms and conditions and the pay freeze, will also have a substantial effect on council budgeting.
Where can I find that in the budget documents?
There are two elements in the local government settlement that we will need to discuss with COSLA in terms of the distribution. The first is the additional £15 million that was added to what would have been the local government settlement if the local government share of the Scottish budget had been maintained. As always, the settlement also contains a sum—£37 million—that is used to pay for support for probationer teachers across the country. We discuss every year with authorities how to distribute that; generally, distribution is based on where the probationers happen to be teaching. That total amount is still available, even though there will be 1,000 fewer probationers needing support next year. That gives some more flexibility in the system. We will discuss with COSLA and the authorities how best to use that.
I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for attending the committee. We have covered a lot of ground in the hour and 20 minutes that we have had. I suspend the meeting for two minutes to allow the cabinet secretary and his officials to leave.
Thank you.
Previous
Attendance