Official Report 187KB pdf
The first item on this afternoon's agenda is oral evidence from Nicol Stephen, the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, on the Scottish Borders inquiry. Assisting Nicol Stephen are Mike Ewart and Mary Newman, who are Executive officials.
Thank you very much. Mike Ewart is the head of the schools group in the Scottish Executive education department. Mary Newman is in charge of the best value in local government unit in the Scottish Executive finance and central services department.
Happy new year to you, deputy minister.
As I said in my opening remarks, we support the committee's conclusion in so far as it relates to the educational well-being of young people in the Borders. It is clearly vital to protect the quality of education; indeed, the issue was uppermost in our minds in our discussions on virement within the excellence fund. We sought and received reassurances from the council on that point, and I am sure that we will go into the subject in more detail later.
My follow-up question concerns the Executive's additional resources for education. We have heard evidence that some of those resources were not finding their way into the appropriate pots. Although we do not want a huge discussion about ring fencing, I am interested in teasing out how the Executive monitors implementation of measures within education. You referred to HMIE and the Accounts Commission. The Accounts Commission will obviously examine the budget deficit, whereas HMIE has responsibility for the education service. Across what range of targets will they carry out their monitoring? Furthermore, will they monitor where money goes and how effectively it is spent? Once local authorities receive that money, what can the Executive do if it picks up concerns on the ground that are subsequently validated?
I will ask Mike Ewart to supply some of the detail on that. However, I think that your question has two answers, the first of which relates to excellence fund moneys and the second of which relates to money that is given to councils through grant-aided expenditure.
Without going too far into the detail of the specific grant and other arcana—as Jackie Baillie requested—I should point out that where we have provided additional resources over and above the allocations that have been made through the revenue support grant settlements in the form of specific grants, those grants usually contain specific requirements to report back to the Executive.
You will remember that last financial year there was a substantial pay-out of £400,000-odd to schools in the Borders. The schools then told us that the authorities clawed back money from them. Although on paper it could be said that the money had gone to schools, clawing it back made it feel as if no extra money had been paid. Am I right in thinking that when Mr McConnell was Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs he attached conditions and asked for assurances about the money that was paid in this financial year, which amounted to £200,000-odd then another £200,000-odd and now, I think, another £417,000? Am I right in thinking that that money will not be diverted to pay for cuts in expenditure but will get to the schools where it is seen as a lifeline in the current circumstances?
That is entirely right. One of the conditions of the grants to which you have referred is that they should be additional to existing or planned expenditure.
That is correct. The director of finance of Scottish Borders Council signalled that that was the case. When £416,000 was allocated, within a month £350,000 had been cut from—as I understand it, in layman's terms—the planned expenditure for education in the Borders. That left a net total of £66,000. Do you accept that? What penalties can be incurred by a council, such as Scottish Borders Council, for doing just that? It seems to me to be a breach of the contract on funding with the Executive.
My understanding is that when the funds that were budget 2000 consequentials came through to schools and Scottish Borders Councils allocated those funds to individual schools, the council was also reclaiming staffing allowances that had already been made to the schools. The council dealt with those two sums of money at about the same time and, in some schools, within the same letter. That was perhaps not a great success in terms of presentation. The Executive was assured, however, that they were two separate exercises. We are convinced that the clawback of the staffing adjustments was a legitimate claim. It is unfortunate that it should have appeared as if the two sets of money were being offset against one another.
You were talking about the excellence fund and the virement of £525,000 that was made that included certain categories in education. One of the assurances was to do with early intervention. Supporting parents was also a category. The assurance that was given to the minister and the Executive was that the virement would not impact on children who have special educational needs. How are you monitoring that?
The transfers of money that were involved in the virement in the summer of last year did not include any virement out of the inclusion programme or the provision for special educational needs. Indeed, there was—as a result of the virement—an increase of £31,000 in the amount that was made available to the inclusion programme.
I am at a loss. I have in front of me proposed budget adjustments from the council. In the categories that make up the £525,000, classroom assistants, early intervention, support for teachers, supporting parents, inclusion and alternatives to exclusion are listed under spending.
The figure that was given in Jack McConnell's written answer to Ian Jenkins was a total of £358,000 being transferred into the national grid for learning programme from resources that were, at that stage, uncommitted in the Scottish Borders Council budget. I wonder whether those figures tally with Christine Grahame's. The figures are as follows: £100,000 for early intervention; £10,000 for supporting parents; £198,000 for classroom assistants; and £50,000 for support for teachers. In his written answer, Mr McConnell refers to:
Will Christine Grahame provide the official report with a copy of her figures?
I have only brought some of them from my vast files.
It would help if you could supply the official report with that information at the end of the meeting.
I will do so.
The figure of £525,000 was an initial figure, but money relating to the autism unit did not feature in the final settlement, as the council withdrew its request for that money. The figure that Nicol Stephen gave was the final figure. Christine Grahame gave the initial, notional figure of £525,000.
We are moving away from the key point. Members may correct me if I am wrong, but the assurance was given that this crisis would not impact on children who have special educational needs. I would like to know whether the minister is satisfied that that is not happening at the moment. How will he monitor whether that remains the case?
We are committed to continuing discussions with Scottish Borders Council. I have had a meeting with representatives of the council and Mike Ewart has had several meetings with them. We have a commitment in writing from Scottish Borders Council that it will ensure that the interests of children who have special educational needs are protected. If we received information that the council was failing in any way to meet its commitment, we would treat that extremely seriously and take appropriate steps.
Are you actively monitoring the situation, rather than waiting for someone to come to you with information?
The obvious source of information for us is the investigation by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education, which will take place later this year. We also have regular contact with the authority and the local inspectors, who themselves have regular contact with parents and schools in the area.
Our time with the minister is limited and there are other issues that we would like to discuss with him.
I do not want to dominate the discussion.
You referred to the investigation that will be carried out by HMIE. What is the likely time scale for that?
It will take place early this year.
When an HMIE inspection of a local authority is to take place, a letter is sent to the council giving notice—normally, eight weeks' notice—of the commencement of the inspection. It is only proper that that letter should come from HMIE. However, Jack McConnell indicated that he was anxious that the inspection of the education department of Scottish Borders Council should proceed once the Accounts Commission had completed its report. That inspection has not yet taken place, but we expect it to happen soon. It will be under way in the early part of this year.
What is the time scale for the inspection?
If it is to take place in the early part of this year, it will have to be under way by spring.
Has the council received the letter from HMIE yet?
It has not.
So it will be at least eight weeks before the inspectors visit.
That is correct. However, the inspection will take place early this year. It would be wrong for me to indicate today exactly when it will happen and thereby to change the normal protocol, but the inspection will take place soon.
You said that there is no immediate role for ministers beyond the specific issue of virement. From the way in which you phrased that statement, I assume that you are not ruling out further involvement by ministers. Under what circumstances do you feel that it would be appropriate for you to intervene?
Ministers would have powers under the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000. If additional concerns were raised as a result of the inspectorate's report, our interest would be in ensuring that the recovery plan that the council agreed was implemented in such a way that it protects the quality of education that is provided to pupils in the Borders. We would be concerned that the plan should be carried out and managed with a high degree of quality; we would act speedily if the inspectorate made further concerns known to us.
I will ask more about the recovery plan. You have said that you and Mike Ewart have met Borders Council several times. Can you give us more details? Were those meetings at the invitation of Borders Council or were they initiated by the Executive? Was the intention specifically to talk about the council's recovery plan? Did the Executive have an input to the plan? Are you broadly content with the proposals, and can you expand on the issues involved?
It is important to emphasise that the meetings have been at the request of Borders Council in relation to the virement of the exclusion fund moneys; they did not take place as a result of a proposal to the council by the Executive. If there are budgetary problems, overspends and mismanagement in a council, the primary responsibility lies with that council; it is not for the minister to intervene. If we see that there are problems and believe that we can help—help was requested by the council in relation to the excellence fund—we will do that. If those problems are sufficiently serious we will take further action. That is what we have done in relation to the HMIE inspection. That is the appropriate route for ministers to take, rather than sending in officials from the department. It is appropriate that the inspection is carried out by HMIE, which brings objectivity to the situation. HMIE is respected by everyone who is involved in the education process. We look forward with interest to receiving its report when it is made available later this year.
I understand that. Have you seen the plan that Borders Council has accepted as a way forward?
I have seen it—Andrew Tully spoke to it when he met me with his senior officials and he talked me through the detail of what they propose to do. He also raised some other, wider issues relating to the particular circumstances of Borders Council, and the situation of rural councils and other smaller councils in Scotland. He raised a range of devolved and reserved issues.
Does the Executive recognise that there are budgetary problems in special educational needs? Most of what we are dealing with today has arisen from a lack of good financial monitoring and so on. However, in special educational needs—for reasons that we need not go into—there is an inherent difficulty in budgeting. Pupils carry heavy financial needs that can easily throw a budget off. Is the Executive prepared to consider such an issue, in respect of the provision and grant funding of education as a whole, and not just in relation to the Borders? Does the Executive recognise that a bit of flexibility and support is needed in that regard?
We are considering that at the moment, in relation to the development of the national strategy for children with special educational needs. If any council wants to make representations on that issue, we would be happy to receive them. A variety of representations have already been made to me on that point.
It is also a problem because of the smallness of the council. Such provision impacts disproportionately on a smaller budget.
Absolutely. When I refer to rural councils, I should say rural and/or smaller councils.
Rural councils have a particular problem with transport, in terms of the need both to transport the special educational needs youngsters—who might need to travel in individual vehicles—and to bus youngsters in general considerable distances around the country.
Can I ask another question, convener?
I am conscious that other members want to ask questions, so this will have to be your final question, Christine.
I have a couple of questions. Thank you for being so tolerant, convener—I will reciprocate if you ever come to my committee.
I will let you have one question and then decide about the second.
In that case I will hedge my bets and ask one question in two parts.
I would like Mary Newman to answer your second question. I am not seeking to provide an answer for all councils in all situations at all times. All MSPs agree that we would not be setting a good precedent if the Executive stepped in and provided additional funding because of mismanagement or the sort of reasons that we have heard about from Scottish Borders Council, and—
It would be borrowing, not a grant.
I will ask Mary Newman to comment on borrowing and the other approaches that could be taken.
Not to answer?
No—not to give a view. I do not think that I should give a view on the detail of the recovery programme, which is a matter for Scottish Borders Council and for the local electorate. All I can say as a minister is that I do not want the education of any child in Scotland to be prejudiced by cuts in a council's education budget. The Executive has made available sufficient resources to allow councils to expand education funding. Indeed, the McCrone pay and conditions agreement represents a major investment in the education system. All 32 councils have access to the additional funding that the Executive has made available.
I am afraid that I cannot profess to be an expert on that subject. In a sense, the deputy minister is right, as it is for Scottish Borders Council to decide how to rebalance its budget, which the action plan that it has put to the Accounts Commission is designed to do. The Accounts Commission will monitor how well the authority rebalances its budget across the range of its activities and statutory obligations. The plan that the council put to the Accounts Commission involves a rebalancing of the budget from existing resources. Grant from the Executive is only one source of income for the council; it will make other borrowings and it will use its local tax-raising powers.
That would be very helpful—that is the furthest that I have got with that question.
I will not let you ask any more questions.
We will provide that information to the committee.
That would be helpful. We have had a fair blast on the Scottish Borders inquiry this afternoon. I thank the minister and the Executive officials for their contribution.