Chamber and committees

So what is it, roughly, in your mind?

As I said, we had representatives from three unions at the committee last week, and we heard from a teachers association the week before that. We did not hear from pupil support assistants, but we have heard that, with the high degree of additional support needs that are now in classrooms, teachers require people to be in the classroom when they are teaching to help the students who are struggling so that they can focus on their tasks, which allows for a more productive learning environment for teachers and pupils.

Those support staff do not seem to be unionised under a trade-specific union—it is apparently Unison that covers most of them—so we did not hear their voices on what they would require. They are at risk of being marginalised during the reform process to release more of the budget, but we need to have more of them in the classroom; that should be the priority, rather than removing teachers from the classroom. What consideration have you given to that issue?

I am sorry to interrupt. I totally agree that there are benefits to using artificial intelligence for a range of issues, to help teachers to prepare for classes and tailor for different needs. However, to look at it from a budget scrutiny point of view, the implementation of the RCCT policy will cost up to £300 million, yet we are spending only about £30 million on additional support needs—on teachers in classrooms. We have heard continuously that that is really the priority in which we ought to be investing, yet we are spending a 10th of that budget on them.

Okay, thank you.

Moving on to the Promise, you said in your opening remarks, and I was glad to hear it, that the purpose of the endeavour that we are pursuing with our care system is to create loving, safe and respected relationships for these children. However, I was concerned about the Oversight Board report and about what we heard at last Tuesday evening’s event with care assistants, which was that a lot of the language seems to be increasingly focused on building trusted relationships, scaffolding and support but not the key issue of forming a lifelong loving relationship.

In fact, we heard that in some of the earlier evidence sessions, which involved getting people to recognise immediately that delivering that for children is the main route for change. Is there a watering down of the ambition to ensure that all children in care receive lifelong loving relationships?

10:00

When the Government or agencies deliver care—this can also happen with whole family support—a range of adults and professionals are introduced into a young person’s life. That includes mentors, befrienders, whole family support workers, pastoral support, youth workers, social workers, family drug workers, respite carers and mental health workers, yet none of them has the expectation that they will go on to form a lifelong loving relationship with the child. I have seen it happen often that somebody—whether it was a pupil support assistant or whoever else—had a bond and a connection with a child but, in the system, we overlooked the potential for that relationship, because they did not go through the foster care or kinship care assessment. What efforts is the Government making to ensure that every relationship that a child has is supported to give it the best chance of being that one crucial lifelong loving relationship?

It seems to me, from reading your report, that some areas are not implementing family group decision making and that there is no impetus to make that happen, which means that there is a patchwork of services. How do we ensure that it works better for children everywhere?

Joanna Macdonald, you are nodding.

We have gaps in the delivery of family group decision making. I agree with what everyone has said about the hard work of individuals who make it happen, and I stress that your agency has a key role in promoting social work in that regard, but we still have gaps. When we have gaps, it means that, somehow, FGDM is not cascading up or down to the people who should deliver it and ensure that the services are there. What do we need to put in place to ensure that that happens?

Claire Burns, I will come to you on that. In Scotland, there could be a case for specialist services such as secure care being provided nationally, foster care being addressed regionally and then the kinship care network being identified at the community level. However, we do not seem to have a mechanism to enable that to happen. Would that be a good way forward?

Good morning, and thank you for coming. I do not want to be too provocative, but I am struck by the fact that we have three trade unions here and we had a professional association in last week, but there is not a trade union for schoolchildren—I do not mean to be too facetious—and there is no specialised union for teaching assistants or support staff, although I know that they are part of a more general union.

From the child’s perspective—in their absence—if a union existed for them, would children really say that less time with a teacher was their priority in improving learning? Last week, ADES warned us that additional changes of teacher could disrupt pupils’ learning. The proposals will probably cost about £300 million a year. Would it not be better to invest that in support staff and administration? That would reduce the workload and make the workplace less stressful. It would make coming to work a more productive and enjoyable experience and therefore reduce the workload for teachers in other ways.

I am interested in briefly hearing the perspectives of all three witnesses on that.

I am conscious of the time, so I will leave it there.