Welcome to the personal excellent of leadership planning meeting of the Education, Children and Young People committee in 2021. The first item on our agenda today is a decision on taking business in private. Can I ask whether members are content to allow agenda item six in private. We are content. The second item on the agenda is to take evidence from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Covid Recovery, John Swinney MSP and his officials on the redress for survivors, historical child abuse in care, payments materially affected by error Scotland regulations 2021. First of all, a very warm welcome to the Deputy First Minister to committee this morning. Mr Swinney is accompanied by Lisa McClawy, divisional development and legislation unit head for the Scottish Government and Claire Montgomery, solicitor, Scottish Government legal directorate. Good morning to all. Mr Swinney, can I invite you first to speak to the draft instrument? Thank you, convener, and thank you to the committee for inviting me to speak in support of the affirmative instrument before the committee. Section 97 of the redress for survivors historical child abuse in care Scotland Act 2021 makes provision for the recovery by Scottish ministers of payments other than redress payments, which were made due to irrelevant error. The payments to which section 97 applies include those made in respect of expert reports, payment made by way of reimbursement of costs and expenses and legal fees in connection with a redress application or a proposed application. A relevant error can either be an error when making the payment—for example, an administrative mistake—or an error that ministers consider materially affected the decision to make the payment. That may arise in a case where the decision to make the payment was simply wrong, or in a case where the decision was right but the information on which it was based was incorrect or misleading. Those draft regulations provide for reconsiderations of decisions to make the payments mentioned in section 97.2 of the act, where an error as defined in regulation 2 may have been made. The reconsideration is to be conducted by a panel of at least two members of redress Scotland. Before the reconsideration takes place, the beneficiary of a payment will be given eight weeks to make written representations to the panel. If the panel finds that the decision was materially affected by error, it must redeterminate on the basis of how it would have been decided had the error not been made. In practice, we hope that this process will be rarely used. It will only be invoked in cases where there is cause to believe that there has been a material human error or where it has thought that a decision to make a payment may have been materially affected by error because it was based on misleading or incorrect information. It is important to note that where there is an error in making a redress payment, it does not follow that all decisions to make payments linked to it are materially affected by the error. For example, legal fees may have been paid to a solicitor in making a redress application for a person and that person is offered a redress payment. If it later comes to light that the application was fraudulent and no redress payment should have been made, the decision to pay the solicitor's legal fees will not be referred for reconsideration unless it is suspected that the solicitor had also fraudulently claimed the fees. In the interests of fairness, the draft instrument includes a right to review the outcome of a reconsideration process where a reviewer is requested that it is to be determined by a panel of redress Scotland, which is different to the one that conducted the reconsideration. A person who requests a review is able to provide further information and written representations to the review panel. As the committee will be aware, the importance of sound processes and fraud prevention measures was considered throughout the development of the act. That is why we have put in place measures to ensure that appropriate financial recovery is available where payments have been made in error. Those draft regulations supplement that, setting out the detail of how potential errors in non-redress payments will be considered. I seek the committee's support for this draft instrument, which is part of our preparations towards launching the scheme. I am very happy to answer any questions. If any member has any questions or comments on the draft instrument, Fergus Ewing. Fergus Ewing. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Deputy First Minister and two officials. The opening statement sets out the reason why the regulation sets out a process assuming that there may be errors made, is that there is a recognition that fraudulent applications may be made and that that is something that cannot be ruled out. I think that it is fair to say, convener, that every MSP recognises the need for these payments to be made the victims of appalling sexual abuse. That is not in dispute, nor the provision set out in the measure for payments to professionals not to be required to be repaid in the event that, unwittingly, there has been a fraudulent application. What I would like to ask the Deputy First Minister and perhaps to flesh out his answer in correspondence is a series of questions about this area. Has modelling been carried out to try to elicit what number and quantity of applications may be in the category of fraudulent? Is the threshold for applying evidence sufficient to establish entitlement to trigger a payment perhaps lower than the standard of satisfying the balance of probability test in court? Is the Deputy First Minister satisfied that that threshold is pitched at the right level? Thirdly, I understand and I am afraid that I do not have detail to back this up that there has been themes in other parts of the UK. Has the DFM or his officials considered with those Administrations how to learn from their experience to minimise error, to minimise fraud and to ensure that what we all wish to achieve is achieved without loss to the public purse through fraudulent application given the obvious risks that may give occasion to that? I hope that I have set the questions out clearly, convener, and I did, given principle, notice to the DFM that I was planning to raise this issue this morning. There are three substantive questions that Mr Ewing puts to me, all of which are absolutely legitimate. On the first question about modelling, we have not undertaken any modelling of our expectations of fraud. We have, of course, undertaken modelling of the number of applications that we consider likely that we will have to deal with in the scheme. Obviously, that modelling information is enhanced by the experience that we have had with the advanced payment scheme, which has given us a sense of the likelihood of applications coming forward, so that there has been modelling, which has underpinned the financial memorandum for the scheme. The modelling also influences the discussions and dialogue that we have with providers of care, who we are obviously looking to make financial contributions to the scheme. What we have not modelled is the likelihood of the quantity of cases that may be affected by error. The reason for that is that what this instrument is about is essentially about creating a proper architecture for financial control and to give financial assurance about the operation of the scheme. This is an entirely new scheme that is being created, so we have to make sure that we have the appropriate financial architecture in place. This instrument is one element of that architecture. The second point that Mr Ewing puts to me is about the threshold of evidence. That is an issue that we have discussed extensively within the committee and chamber deliberative processes on the act. That is a very finely balanced question, because, fundamentally, the redress scheme is available to members of the public who have suffered abuse but who it is likely will be unsuccessful to be able to pursue a claim through civil courts. If the civil courts are a possibility for an individual to pursue their claim, they should do so, if that is their judgment that they have a strong and valid claim. Obviously, suficiency of evidence will be a critical factor in that respect. The scheme is predicated on a lower standard of proof than in the courts, but of sufficient credibility to enable a judgment to be made in each case. Obviously, that has to be accepted in good faith, but should we find that that is not the case, then obviously we need to have remedies of which this is an appropriate instrument to take forward. Lastly, in relation to other schemes, we have engaged extensively with a range of schemes across not just the United Kingdom but across the world to identify what are the lessons to be learned from the administration and organisation of a number of those schemes. We have taken a lot of that learning into the design of the act that Parliament has considered and passed. The provisions that we are bringing forward here are our assessment of the legitimate provisions that we have to have in place to make sure that we have a robust and workable scheme. Are you satisfied, Fergus? Yes, I think that the DFM has answered the questions that I have had very fairly and along the lines that I have expected. I have just got one follow-up question computer on. Again, I am not sure whether the DFM is to answer off the cuff or go away and consider it. I am afraid that I have not researched the act myself. Am I right in saying that a fraudulent application is not the subject of a specific statutory offence in the legislation itself, but that where there is proof that an application has been made, fraud, common law and guarantees of fraud could be pursued. In other words, to try to make sure that we deter fraudulent applications by making it clear that the full force of the law will be applied in appropriate cases, where you have the disgraceful incidents of people taking advantage of a government scheme intended for genuine victims trying to defraud the state out of money for those victims, is that something that the DFM, if he has not already discussed with the law officers, may do so in order to ensure that we are fully prepared to take action in the, hopefully, small number of cases where such action happens? We have got two experts on hand, so, Deputy First Minister? It is always helpful to have experts to hand, convener. There are two points that I would make in response to Mr Ewing's question. The first is to say that there will be a further instrument coming to the committee in due course, which will look at the circumstances whereby there may be some recovery of redress payments. This instrument does not affect redress payments, but there will be an instrument coming to committee, which will look at some of the issues around recovery of redress payments, where there has been issues of concern raised, and they will be brought to committee in due course. The second point that I would make is that, should there be a suspicion that an application has been made on a fraudulent basis, that would be dealt with by common law powers in relation to the handling of fraud matters, and, potentially, there would be a referral to Police Scotland for consideration as a criminal offence, in line with common law powers. Oliver Mundell, I want to ask the length of time that passes between an error being identified and a payment having been made would be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not it had materially affected the claim. That would be the case. The regulations involve a power of discretion about whether or not there should be consideration given to the response to a potential error that has emerged. There is no obligation in the regulations that such a course should be taken, but there is provision for consideration to be given to any steps to be taken in that respect. Obviously, the issue that Mr Mundell raises with me is one of the issues that would be material to that consideration. That is helpful. I think that, for some of those individuals who have been impacted, it would be distressing for claims to be revisited over what could be relatively minor errors in their minds. I understand that the Government and Ureddress Scotland have got to satisfy themselves with things that have been done properly, but I think that the threshold for error from the point of view of a survivor might be somewhat higher in terms of having to re-engage with the process. That is all that I would ask. We were mindful of that. I completely understand the point that has been made. Can I clarify that the instrument in front of the committee today does not relate to redress payments, it relates to survivors, it relates to legal fees, psychology reports and other circumstantial reports that may be relevant and where cost may have been incurred in error. The other instrument that I talked about in my last answer to Mr Ewing will be the one that looks at the question that Mr Mundell's point relates to, so we will have an opportunity to air some of those issues again when that regulation comes to committee. It would be possible for survivors to be contacted in relation to this instrument, is that correct? It is unlikely that that would be the case. It is much more likely that it would be... I cannot rule out in all circumstances, but it is unlikely that that would be the case, because it is more likely that it would be solicitors or psychologists or a provider of some form of service that would be in question here. The point that Mr Mundell raises is that due consideration has to be given to the potential impact on survivors of any reawakening or reconsideration of a particular case, because we all know that Mr Mundell has been an active participant in the debate on the redress legislation. We all know that the damage that has been done to survivors, we know the difficulty and the challenge of this process for survivors, so I would want to assure the committee that I do not view the application of those regulations with any automaticity. We have to exercise those regulations with care, and one of the issues that has to be considered is the very valid point that Mr Mundell puts to me. It is unlikely that this process would be activated unless there was also consideration of trying to claim back some of the compensation monies that have been paid to survivors. No, I would say the opposite. It may be that there may have been some error in the process that requires specific action in relation to the process, but not necessarily in relation to the payment that has been made. There could, of course, be a relationship between the two. This is a process that would be initiated entirely by Redress Scotland. We discussed the other powers that you are talking about that we will see shortly. We can discuss how those powers might be initiated. I would expect to lay those regulations shortly and for them to be in front of the committee sometime in the new year. We will look forward to having you come back and be with us to discuss those issues, which are probably in front of mind when it comes to the survivors of these historic cases. Any other colleagues wish to ask any questions of the Deputy First Minister? On that basis, I thank the Deputy First Minister for the way that he has responded to the issues that have been raised by members of the committee. We will move on to agenda item 3. Our next item of business is to invite the Deputy First Minister to move motion S6M-01889 that the Education, Children and Young People Committee recommends that the redress for survivors historical child abuse and care payments materially affected by error Scotland regulations 22 into 1 be approved. I would like to invite the Deputy First Minister to speak to and move the motion. I would move the motion in my name. Do members have any comments? I am duty bound to ask the Deputy First Minister if he would like to wind up. The question is that motion S6M-01889 in the name of John Swinney be approved. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The committee must now produce its report on this draft instrument. Is the committee content to delegate responsibility to the Deputy Convener and I to agree this report on behalf of the committee? Can I ask the Deputy First Minister—sorry, can I thank the Deputy First Minister and his officials for their attendance today? We will now have a brief suspension to allow the Deputy First Minister and his officials to leave the committee. Welcome back for our next item of business. We will be taking evidence on the overall impact of Covid-19 on children and young people. I would like to welcome Jennifer King, education manager, children and family service, Dundee City Council and chair of the ASN-CYP services association of directors of education in Scotland, and Laura Cavern, chief officer, children and young people team, COSLA. Mike Corbett, National Official Scotland, NASUWD. Joan Trenant, chief social worker at Midlothian Council, and deputy chair of children and family standing committee, Social Work Scotland. You are all very welcome and you are also virtual. We have a hybrid meeting, which is always full of interesting challenges. Please feel free to indicate that you wish to speak, because, unfortunately, I am not being in the room. We can't always see if you want to speak, so please do feel free to speak up to that end. We thank you all for your time today, and we will now go to the questions. I am going to turn first to the Deputy Convener, Cokab Stewart. Thank you, convener. I am interested in—obviously, there were a lot of groups that were set up in order to look at the impacts of Covid and to move forward. I am looking at, particularly at SERGE, the Covid-19 education recovery group's work, and to compare that to pre-existing policy groups, such as the Scottish Education Council, for instance. I would be interested to know whether you felt that SERGE was more collaborative. I am also interested to know how much influence it did and whether SERGE had on key policy decisions. I would like to put that question to Jennifer King first, and then I would be interested to hear from Laura and from COSLA after that. Thank you for your question. I will answer it as best I can. SERGE was set up at a time when we needed to have a particular focus on the response at the time of the pandemic. From anadise perspective, there was very active involvement with the range of partners at that time, including for those with additional support needs and those who were care-experienced. I am not sure that I could honestly answer and say whether it was or make a comparison, if you like, between SERGE and the Scottish Education Council. What I would say as a member of one of the SERGE subgroups was that it was a very collaborative experience. Do you think that I would be interested about the influence, then, on key policy decisions from the Scottish Government? Did you feel that it did have that status and that it was listened to? Yes, I think that it did. I have a bit of echo, sorry. I think that it did in terms of the guidance, again I am speaking from anadise perspective, but in terms of the guidance, which was then subsequently updated, it was fairly dynamic, I think, the process. Sometimes that was challenging because we were having to mediate that, if you like, from the perspective of ultimately implementation for schools and nurseries. However, I think that it was a dynamic process, and I think that it did at the time when we were having to manage a number of different factors. I think that it did have influence, yes. The Education Recovery Group had a clear role in taking the scientific evidence from the advisory subgroup and translating it into the practical options that could be taken forward to support learners in the period of school closure and the real plan. It had a clear role in its terms of reference and reporting arrangements to both the Scottish Minister and the Scottish Ministers and the cause of leaders. The subgroups and the work streams that were under it worked effectively to develop guidance in the way that it did that. It also had the benefit of working across the Children and Families Collective Leadership Group, making sure that those two groups were able to from the shared membership of organisations on each of them were able to have a coherent approach to support in children and families over that period. We asked about the difference between the third role and existing groups, such as the Scottish Education Council, such as Jennifer. I do not think that there is a clear answer to that because there are very different policies and circumstances. One of the benefits of the Education Recovery Group's leadership was that it was co-chaired by both the Deputy First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary, and now the Cabinet Secretary, and the cause of children and young people's votes person. That allowed for consistent messaging across both spheres of government and that challenge in landscape. The Scottish Education Council is not chaired in the same way, because I had sought co-changing for that, but that was not taken forward. Perhaps a little bit at this point in giving the learning through the pandemic and then for a whole system approach to supporting children and young people. I think that I caught most of that, so thank you very much for that. I will go on to something slightly different while I have still got my turn, as it were. I would like to remind everyone of my register of interests. I am currently an associate member of the NASUWT, so I will come to Mike. Read your written submission. I want to have a look at any strategy going forward for effective recovery that will require an effective focus on the workforce. Mike Orbit, can you give us the top three tips that you can give us on how workforce planning and how we can make sure that the workforce in education is taken care of as we recover? In relation to that question, what we will be saying initially is that—this relates to question 16 about new approaches needed. There is often reference made to other countries and how they do well with the Finnish education system, for example. At the heart of that is respect for teachers. There is much greater respect for teachers in other countries such as Finland, and that is a new approach that we need with our workforce. Key among those new approaches would be to pay our teachers properly. At the moment, there is plenty around the current pay offer and how it is a significant real-terms pay cut. That has really upset and annoyed a number of teachers at the moment, given what they have put in during the pandemic. Beyond that, even before the pandemic, but exacerbated by it, there have been workload considerations in our surveys. Even before the pandemic, workload issues came up as the number one concern for teachers that has been exacerbated by everything that has happened during the pandemic. I appreciate that the OECD review has touched on the fact that Scottish teachers have more class contact time than almost any other OECD country. There is a plan to address that and a proposed reduction in class contact time, but there is no timescale for that other than within this Parliament, so we would want that urgently addressed. Alongside that, as a third point, I suggest that we need a reduction in class sizes as well, because if anything, the pandemic has shown that many pupils need individualised or small group attention in order for them to progress as well as they can. If we are genuinely going to do that, we really need to seriously reduce class sizes in many of our schools. Thanks for that, Mike. That is my last bit, convener. You will know that I was a teacher for many years and know fine well about workload, but the curriculum for excellence working group on tackling bureaucracy has been available for a while. What do you think are the barriers to implementing it and making a difference to tackling bureaucracy? Well, commitment is one of them because I was on the group originally back in, it started in 2013, produced a very good report about the drivers of workload and how to tackle them, and sadly a number of local authorities simply seemed to ignore the first report, and that led to a second report in 2015, reiterating many of those key issues, but if the groups of individuals are going to ignore what was agreed at the top level as a number of very good recommendations, we think that they really need statutory force or something similar if they are to be taken on board, because it is a frustration that I know that Professor Ken Muir shared in recent meetings we had with him about work that we did alongside him at the time, and very good reports with good recommendations were produced, but unfortunately many did not do enough to take those recommendations forward. I think that what I am hearing from that is that there seems to be a little bit of a disconnect between sort of like overarching policy and the way that it is implemented at local levels, so that's very interesting to know that. Thank you, thank you convener. I would probably like to ask a couple of questions to Laura Carven from COSLA, but it was in relation to funds that have been put in for education recovery both through Covid and beyond. Just looking at my notes, there was an £80 million Covid fund through the period up until now, which has now been made permanent next year in the core budget next year. That suggests that it has been employing through Covid and can employ permanently from April next year 1,400 teachers and 250 support staff. Leave that sitting there. There is also a £65.5 million new release of cash for April next year again in the core budget, which will give 1,000 additional teachers and 500 support staff. That is 2,400 more teachers and 750 more support staff. I suspect that the demands are such that they are very, very much needed and you could always do with more and I absolutely get that, but what I would really like to know, convener, is from the staff that are already imposed and for those that are likely to be recruited? What view COSLA takes in how they should be deployed? Should they be deployed generally across the education estate, primary and secondary schools or local authorities looking to target the use of teachers and support staff for, say, additional support needs or to free up teacher time elsewhere? What is the sense from COSLA about how that money has been spent to date? Probably more importantly, how that money should be spent going forward and I will probably have some questions related to that depending on the thoughts of Laura Cavern. Thanks. My answer to that is going to be probably one that you would expect and that we would expect that to be a local decision based on the needs of individual local authorities, individual schools, individual learners and the set-ups that they have got and the ports that they have got around them. I do not think that I can necessarily give you a clear answer on that beyond the fact that local authorities know their areas and the needs in their areas best, so we need to ensure that flexibility is there for them to make that decision. Thanks, Laura. I did anticipate that you would say that, and that sounds eminently reasonable. I also see from your submission that there are significant reporting requirements already on the monies that local authorities get and your concern about any additional reporting requirements, but this is Scotland's education committee. One of the things that we are seeking to understand is that when you have such a significant investment of £145.5 million additional to a core education budget going to local authorities, that committee wants to know how that money is deployed and we get those needs for local flexibility. Do you think that it would be reasonable for COSLA or for local authorities to give some reasonable details on how many primary school teachers have been employed, how many secondary school teachers have been employed, how many additional support needs staff have been deployed, what the purpose and role of those staff are and what a positive outcome would look like to that spend? I know that that is a hugely bureaucratic and I know that schools know their kids best and local authorities know their local communities best and I get all that, but at some point this committee will say to the Scottish Government, you have put that money in, what results have you got for it? We cannot just scrutinise the Government, but we have also got to shine a light on how local authorities in COSLA view that spend and what the benefits of it have been through Covid, so perhaps you could say it for the £80 million that has already been spent during Covid, what the benefits of that have been and what you anticipate this committee could do to measure positive outcomes in the years ahead for that significant additional spend? Teacher numbers are published each year, I believe each year, don't hold me to that, I'll clarify that in writing, so you will have that information to hand and I do believe that that's broken down in the way that you're asking for there, so hopefully that would help the committee to understand how that's been deployed at the local level and in terms of the outcomes, I think that there's a lot of work going on just now to understand the wider impacts of Covid and the associated restrictions on children and young people and their learning and their health and wellbeing, so I think that that's something that we're definitely looking at and that there are groups I think under the children and families collective leadership group looking at outcomes frameworks and so on for children and young people. I won't push further on that, but I know that it's a very detailed question fast to respond to at committee, but of course I could have a think about that and perhaps give us additional information, that would be genuinely really welcome because we're not seeking to do awkward in relation to this, I get that the money still means those challenges, but we do need to follow the money from government to local authorities and local authorities to delivering at a local level, so any additional information that you could give would be helpful. On that point though, we do have Mike Corbett here from a union perspective. Can I ask Mike Corbett whether there's been discussions with union representatives and local authorities or COSLA given the amount of additional money going into the system and quite rightly so because the need is clearly there about how that money is best deployed and making sure that there's permanent contracts and whether that's focused on additional support needs or whether that's focused on lost learning in secondary school when they're going towards exams or is it in primary school or is it all of the above, but I suppose the important thing, convener, is what discussions are there between local authorities, COSLA and union representatives the best way to shape and direct that spend? I think what we would say is that the strategy at the moment has almost missed a key step. There's often tension between, if you like, national prescription and local flexibility, but for us the models that you see being used in the United States and the Netherlands where they seem to have committed more funding in the first place to doing the research, whether that's through questionnaires, diagnostic assessments or whatever, to then identify exactly where the funding should be targeted. We think that that step's really been missed. We've not really had that national guidance and then it's been left to individual local authorities to decide, should the money be spent on recruiting permanent teachers, should it be spent on small group tuition, on social and emotional support for kids, improved technology, support for staff, whatever it might be, all of those things. In many cases, absolutely the right thing to do. Yes, local need needs to be taken into account, but, as I said, we feel that there's not really been that properly researched first step to identify the need or at least to aid local authorities and schools to identify the need before deciding on where the funding goes. I'll give you just one off-the-cuff example that we know of where a school recruited a biology teacher that they did not need because they felt that they were under pressure to recruit another permanent teacher because the Government had told the council that you need to recruit X number of permanent teachers. However, as I say, that kind of thing suggests that we've not quite got the strategy right. The involvement of trade union reps at local level, I would say, is patchy. Some councils and schools do excellent work there, but others, we're not involved at all. I'm pleased that Mike Corbett mentioned temporary teachers and permanent teachers because one of the issues for local authorities over the years has been and the ask of unions has been that there's many, many temporary teachers out there who are not getting permanent contracts. This is surely positive that a lot of temporary teachers can have that contractual basis made permanent. I hope that's something that Mr Corbett would welcome, but I suppose that this money has been spent in real time. I have absolute sympathy for that audit of where the greatest needs are and how that's deployed strategically. I get that, Mr Corbett, but I've always got the money that's been spent in real time, so therefore we have to get the money out and use it as quickly as possible. Could that be an argument for, and for clarity, if I'm not making this argument, but it might fall over from Mr Corbett's point, that as we're spending this money in real time and how we're still analysing the needs within the education sector where it's best to be strategically spent, that if some of those new posts were temporary contracts so you don't lock in a strategic decision when you're still deciding how best to deploy resources, would that be a reasonable thing to do? Mr Corbett, my preference would always be permanent, full-time, contracted teachers at a local authority level given that absolute security, but I'm just conscious that you mentioned there about locking in decisions on permanent posts when perhaps we're not sure how best to direct that money, so from a union perspective is there an argument to be made for some of this new money that's coming forward initially to be used for temporary or short-term appointments as we start to audit or assess where the greatest needs are across local authorities and for our children? We obviously would like to see more permanent teachers employed again. If you make an international comparison in Finland, they have a proportionately far more permanent teachers employed than we do here and a bigger teaching workforce, so obviously we should be moving towards that as part of broader recovery, but your specific point about is there a role for temporary staffing? Whatever it might be, as I say, it could be additional one-to-one support at end-of-day classes for existing staff that are taking those, so there are other things that can be done that might be the suitable thing in an individual school right now, but that wouldn't get away from our overarching desire over time to have more permanent teachers in post. I asked the parliamentary question about this summer time and I was told by the Government that one in eight of all of our teachers are on temporary contracts, so there are people in classrooms right now doing a job of work who do not have the security of a permanent contract. When I asked about this in the chamber, quite rightly the Government Minister said, well, we've now sorted that because that money that was temporary and a one-off in a pot is now part of the core budget. I'm really surprised to hear you be so soft on the issue of getting those temporary contracts to become permanent contracts. I'm really surprised that a union isn't much harder on this issue. Well, as I've said, ultimately we do want more permanent contracts than have actually been offered in the short term. Why are you not saying that those people that are on temporary contracts should be on permanent contracts now? I think that's exactly what the Scottish Government is expecting that local authorities are going to do and use a union should be pushing that surely. And we are pushing it if that's what is required. It didn't sound very much like that to me, it sounded very weak. Can I go to Laura Carvin on that same question? What's the causal position on this? Are we seeing those temporary contract teachers get permanent contracts? I'm happy to come back to you and write in because it would be something that our employers team would have more information on, rather than on our children's policy side. Do you have any sense? You are in a key role with COSLA as chief officer of children and young people. Do you have any sense as to whether there is a move to get those temporary contract teachers on to permanent contracts? Is that something that you're aware of? It's something that I would rather follow up and write in, to be honest, because a part from it melts out. It's fundamental, I think, to the discussion around Covid recovery, that those teachers who've done a fantastic job—and we've done a lot of work on the workload that teachers have been bearing—deserve permanent contracts. I'm being encouraged to be as brief as I'm encouraging other people to be quite rightly so. I'm going to go to Stephanie Cartland. Thank you, convener. Some of my questions follow on, or connect a little bit with what Bob was talking about there. My first question is for Mike. Previously, in evidence, we've heard that there's been a lot of really, really good work by teachers, you know, building relationships with pupils during the pandemic while the schools were out, but that continued when they returned to school as well there, with a lot of it being about wellbeing, being about pupils' mental health, being about young people being in the right place to be able to actually learn. We did also hear about evidence as well there, anecdotal stuff around the fact that teachers are starting to feel that they're possibly losing some of that good work, that there's a pressure now for academic stuff, so a lot more focus on literacy and numeracy primary or secondary school on exams there as well. I was just wondering, you know, would you say that that's been teachers experience recently? Whether teachers are feeling as well that wellbeing and mental health are a high enough priority, and also, I suppose, whether expectations of people's progress has actually changed through the pandemic? Thanks, Mike. Thank you. It's probably worth just foregrounding these comments with a little bit of personal information in that up until the October break, I was a teacher on the front line and only took up this post after the October break, so I was in amongst it for most of the pandemic, as well as at the same time being an elected lay officer of the union, and so hearing stories from around the country about what was happening elsewhere. What you characterise there is probably very accurate. There's no doubt that in the early part of the pandemic and certainly when we were in both lockdowns, the health and wellbeing of pupils was at the forefront of everyone's mind, and I don't think there's any doubt about that, and that did feed into work that was done when pupils returned after both lockdowns. However, I think that you do touch on what is an increasing concern, is that there is a sense of, well, we're back to normal now, the kids are back in school, therefore we get back to doing all the things that we did before, and some of those things are specialised assessments, especially SQA assessments, and we've obviously had some concerns just begin to be expressed just in this past week or so about secondary skills that are now moving towards pre-limb exams or mock exams, which obviously feel they need to do, because they feel they need to prepare the pupils properly for what we're expecting, which is still a full set of exams, but undoubtedly that brings back a lot of pressure on both the pupils and on the teachers as well. It's perhaps one of the reasons why so many of our members are reporting that they are utterly exhausted, because they are trying, I think, to still maintain the relationships with their kids and in front of them and keep those relationships good and look after their wellbeing, alert anyone to any issues they see, while, at the same time, doing everything that they did before in preparing kids for exams or in the primary sector, literacy or numeracy assessments, etc. That pressure seems to come from a variety of places. Sometimes it's within the school, sometimes it's the local authority, sometimes it's its appearance and wider society, but that pressure is there and it's having an impact, and, as I say, it's having an impact on the teachers as well as the pupils. I'd be quite interested in other ways. How do you feel that we could work towards helping to alleviate that? What could we look at doing that would be helpful to our teachers? That's where I think the additional staffing is required, so that the pupils who are identified as struggling in some way, whether it's academically or in vocational skills or in terms of their mental health and wellbeing, that we have staff on hand to work closely with them, whether that's on a one-to-one basis or a small group basis, to help them, because that's not something that touched on class sizes earlier, that's not something that your teacher, with 30 kids in front of them, can realistically do at the moment. That's great. Thanks very much for that, Mike. My next question, convener, is for probably Laura and Jennifer, but possibly as well there. What I'm interested in asking you is about how families and children and our young people are being meaningfully included in the decisions on how local authorities are schools and their children's services are approaching recovery. How are we progressing with that just now? How well is it going at this moment in time and what more is it that we can do? We've had a lot of engagement at both the national level at COSLA and local authorities. I've had individual work that they've undertaken with children and families so that they can really listen to the impacts that it's had on them and how they can be best supported as we move into this next phase. One of the things that I think is really important that's come through really strongly from children and young people is the rejection of the catch-up narrative. Instead, they really need to focus on providing the right support for them and the support that they need to move on. In terms of support and relating to your previous question to Mike, there's over the past year and a half, a number of new services and supports have been put in place for children and young people and their families to support their mental health and wellbeing through the children and young people's mental health and wellbeing joint delivery for the COSLA and Scottish Government to the chair. That's been a real enhancement of the support that's available locally and developed through work with children and young people through engagement with them, consultation with them and what they need. I'll probably have a bit more detail on some of the applications of that locally, but it's certainly something that's been at the forefront of our thinking. In regard to the involvement of parents and families, that's been a process that was initiated, I suppose, during the pandemic period with a lot of outreach from schools and local authorities to parents and carers, depending on their own circumstances. I think that what's happened since then is that there's been a lot of work done. I attended the parent council chair in my own local authority last night, so there's on-going updates and feedback from parent council chairs to the local authority and to head teachers with regard to what is happening in terms of recovery, how parents are finding communication, for example, updates on forthcoming assessments and the on-going implementation of support for our children and young people's mental health and wellbeing. Schools have continued to do regular surveys, albeit that we want to be mindful that we don't want overload of parents and carers in being asked questions, but that certainly has been a feature that has evolved in terms of using technology as well as phone conversations and other means of contact. At an individual level, children and young people under parents are involved, where there is a requirement for individual planning, for example, through review meetings or team-around-a-child meetings. It happens at a number of different levels. I think that the partnership with our third sector providers has been critically important throughout this period of time, particularly those that represent parents and families. A number of them are providers of a range of services, including those for mental health and wellbeing, including those for children and young people with additional support needs and those who are experienced. They have been a critical source of supporting decision making and planning, as well as feedback on how families are responding to the support that has been put in place. That's great, thank you very much. You mentioned ASN there as well, Jennifer. I'm just wondering at the higher levels, where we have working groups with teachers, Scottish Government officials, et cetera, there as well, how well represented is the ASN community there? I think that while national parents are doing ASN generally, so whether that's parents, whether that's people with specialist knowledge or whether it's directly, whether we're talking directly about people with neurodiversity, et cetera? From my experience, I think that those who represent a fairly wide range of additional support needs perspectives, if you like, are involved in policy making and decision making, as well as the additional support for learning implementation group. It has a good representation from national parent forum Scotland, professional associations, the national autism implementation team, the ASN. That's fairly widely represented and is consulted on in relation to wider educational matters, if you like. The ASN is rep on the collective leadership for children, young people and families. Again, additional support needs is a feature, if you like, within the feedback and discussions and planning that takes place there. I think that we need to keep it at the forefront. Forthcoming and the current consultation on education reform is going to be critical that additional support needs and wider equity, if you like, is forefront in the consultation and any forthcoming decisions around that. In terms of representation of ASN in the range of policy groups, it's fairly well balanced at the moment. I'm wondering as well specifically about the representation on the national teacher panel in the Children and Young People Education Council. I don't know if that's a question for you, Jennifer, or if it would be a different member of the panel that would be able to answer that for me. I'm not sure that I can answer that question for you. I don't know the detail that I could find out, but I don't know the detail at the moment. Okay, thanks. I don't think that I've got any volunteers in that one, Stephen. That's maybe a question for another day, but thanks very much for your input there, very helpful. Thank you, Stephanie. Just before I go to a different line of questions that I've got in mind, I wanted to go back to Bob Doris's question line, because, as you can all tell, I'm pretty agitated about temporary contracts for teachers because these are, in many cases, younger teachers who are starting off in their careers and need some security around their employment in order to make other decisions and plan their lives going forward. While I've got Jennifer King, can I ask Jennifer King, are Dundee City Council translating some of those temporary contracts with this certitude that they've now got around budgeting? Are they now translating some of those temporary contract teachers on to permanent contracts? I don't know that I can give you the exact detail on that. There is recruitment under way at the moment, along with looking at—I know that the council policy certainly is that staff who are on temporary contracts are those who should be given consideration within the council's recruitment policy in relation to any permanent contract. I'm not in the position to give you a fuller answer on that at the moment. As far as you are aware, without being too specific around numbers and so forth, is that happening? Are those contracts now made permanent in Dundee? That might be the case for some, but I couldn't give you the exact details of numbers. Bob Doris is right—I'm going to bring Bob Doris back in a minute—to see that the Scottish Parliament is sanctioning all this money to be spent, so this money is coming to Scotland's local authorities. I'm all for holding the Scottish Government to account, but at the end of the day, the employer is the local authority. I've got all kinds of gestures off to the side here from colleagues who want to come in, but at the end of the day, getting those contracts made permanent is very important. What I'd like to ask Laura Carven to do—I didn't do this when we were talking about this—is if you could write to the committee, please, and tell us whether or not this move from temporary to permanent is happening and how many teacher vacancies are there in Scotland over and above the temporary contracts. I think that we'd like to know that. I think that it's fundamental to the role of our committee to see that every penny of money that is spent in education is delivered in terms of having the right number of teachers in classrooms with the permanency of contracts and the security of tenure to get on with their lives. I'm going to bring in Bob Dawson. I can see Michael Marr. This is a very important issue. I will be brief. I think that, just to be dispassionate about it, the committee just wants to analyse the impact that the spend is having, and I think that that's important. A number that I didn't give a convener is that there was actually £240 million for staffing during Covid-19 for additional staffing, and it's £145.5 million going into a core funding budget. The reason I put that on the record is that we have to make sure that when we compare figures from one year to the next, we're comparing apples with apples, but I think that underlying all this is that we need a robust reporting exercise from local authorities on how many temporary posts they have in what areas they are from the year before Covid through Covid to the first year after Covid, in a way that's not bureaucratic, but in a way that allows us to measure the impact and what's actually happening on the ground, but I think that there has to be a consistent measure because all the politicians around this table can pick different figures and use them as we see fit. The important thing for me is that we have a dispassionate, factual, robust reporting exercise on this, and I don't feel that we have that just now. What you're hearing witnesses in the committee today has lessons learned from Audit Scotland that we are focused very much on what happens to the money and what the outcomes are. Michael Marra. I would welcome the agreement between yourself and Mr Doris in terms of what a report should be forthcoming and we get some form of information from COSLA on that. I just want to make my point to yourself, convener, that as I declare an interest in this as a councillor in Dundee City Council, whose Cabinet Secretary has just cut over £4 million of the education budget for Dundee City Council. Speaking to Mrs King here, Jennifer King, and asking her whether people are moving to permanent contracts, I think that that's particularly challenging in Dundee, given the size of cuts, the direct cut that's been made, so if we can reflect some of that in the context, I think that it's absolutely key. In the particular circumstances across nine local authorities who've had massive cuts to those budgets in the last week, I think that we need to really address in that report as well. Those are fundamental issues that we all want to get to the truth of the matter and for the sake of Scotland's young children and young people. On that note, I'm now going to turn to Joan Trenant, because in Joan Trenant, in Social Work Scotland's submission to our committee, there was some interesting information about child protection, which I'd like you to address, please, for the committee. I'll just quote from your submission, and then you'll know what I'm referring to on page 31. An increase in demand such as child protection referrals in IRDs, which are initial referral discussions, but that is not translated into an increase in child protection registration and related activity. Referrals were received from police rather than the previous main referer of education. I'm concerned about that. On the fact that the overall number of children being looked after reduced, I've got one question for you, which I'd like you to address, Joan. Why did this happen in the pandemic and what's happening now? That's two questions. I lied. Two questions. Why and what is happening now? Good morning, convener. Thank you. Yes. It's obviously been a very challenging time during two lockdowns, where social workers continue to do their social work duties. We would like to offer reassurance on that across the whole of Scotland in relation to making sure that those most vulnerable were visited at their home if that's what was required and going into houses at times, which was very challenging for everyone. In relation to child protection referrals and IRDs, coming from police, that's not unusual. Educationers are normal referers, and that's because children are seen every single day in education. When we had lockdown, your children were in schools. We had the hubs open for those who were vulnerable, although not all chose to attend, and for the essential workforce. However, not all children were seen all the time. Therefore, in order to initiate an interagency referral discussion, people need to see children, people need to receive information, and that information is often coming through police incidents rather than through children coming in and reporting that to their teachers, etc. I know what was happening in speaking with colleagues in social work Scotland that across the board, the public protection offices were holding more regular meetings in relation to monitoring this activity that was happening and reporting it on a weekly basis. Indeed, we still report to the Scottish Government on a weekly basis in relation to the numbers to protect from registrations, how many IRDs are registered and how many IRDs we have, so that information is shared across the whole of Scotland. I would have to say that, from a social work perspective, that was not unusual. That was what we predicted would happen. When you don't see children, you don't get that information. Information comes mainly from children talking to adults. We need others in order to do that. Everyone has responsibility during lockdown, though people were not out and about and shared information. That is part of the reason why the main referer became police rather than education. We are now seeing that starting to improve. Children are back in schools again, but I want to highlight that Covid is still here. It is very much an issue. We are dealing with it every single day. We have Covid outbreaks happening every single day in schools, across social work centres and so on. We are not back to full capacity, but we are undertaking our public protection duties in relation to managing risk and ensuring that children and young people who are at risk are attending to their immediate risks and dealing with that as quickly as possible. John, when classes were online and teachers were getting an eye almost into the homes of children, is it the case that, because of the digital divide that there was that became apparent during the first lockdown? I know that there were efforts to try and remedy that as we went into the second longer lockdown. What I am a bit confused about is why teachers could not see very clearly into some homes what was going on. You can tell. Those are professional people. I have the highest respect for our teachers. They understand something about children. Weren't they able to detect from the digital experience that they were having, the interface that they were having, that there were maybe issues that they should be referring? I agree with you that teachers are hugely professional and are very aware of child protection. However, when you are sitting in a house and the potential abuser is sitting at the table next to you—a parent—in the vast majority of times, anybody who is being abused will be a parent. If they are sitting in the house because they are not at their work because of lockdown, etc., it is really difficult and challenging to identify what that need is. You have domestic abuse, which is also highlighted in the report. People cannot tell us if the abuser is sitting there. You need really skilled workforce and you also need a disclosure. Physically, seeing children will never replace anything else in relation to identifying child protection. It was a monitoring system, but it is not an ideal position, I suppose, as what I am saying. Sitting in a classroom gives children much more opportunity to talk and share their experience. I will give you a break here, Joan, and come back to you in a moment. Mike Hobbit wants to come in. Thanks, convener. Just briefly on that point about the digital time that we had and the time online with teaching, the reality of the experience for the vast majority of teachers was that pupils chose not to put cameras on. Therefore, you did not often have that view into the household. In all sorts of ways, that made it much more difficult to make a judgment on whether there was an issue that was worth reporting. That is a very good point, and I appreciate you intervening to make that point. Joan, if I can turn to another aspect of your evidence. That is in relation to people who are vulnerable. I am looking at page 32 of your evidence, in which you describe specific challenges with children in need. You make an illusion that there are groups of young people who could become at risk on that page, which is a recognised reality. What steps are needed at a policy level to enable this set of families to be given early intervention support to prevent problems? What steps are needed at a policy level to enable this group of families to be given early intervention support to prevent problems? When we all work under GERFET, getting it right for every child, early intervention and prevention is something that we continuously talk about. We are hard to hear that there is funding coming in relation to widening that support. The promise also talks about early intervention and prevention. We talk about scaffolding families who previously might not have hit the threshold for social work but for family support. We need to turn this huge ship in relation to diverting resources into early intervention and prevention. That is a real challenge when we are still dealing with crisis day on day, day out. As we have been a social worker for 20 years, we need to manage the crisis, but we need to separate something so that we can get into families earlier. The promise that it has done has also given us that permission to scaffold families for a longer time. We have been through times where scaffolding was not seen as popular, as the state should not intervene if it did not need to. We now recognise that some families will dip in and out of their service. That is fine and that is what we should be doing. The promise is one area in relation to diverting that support. I hope that we can build on that and divert resources into that early intervention and prevention. We have poverty, which is a huge issue. Poverty can lead people into crisis. We want to nip that in the bud at the earliest opportunity. That would be my ask, convener, in relation to a real commitment to doing that and giving everyone permission to say that that is the journey that we are now taking in relation to going forward. Are you saying that early intervention had gone out of fashion, gone out of favour? I do not think so. I think that what you will see from this report, convener, is that at this moment in time we have a real challenge because referrals are increasing rapidly. Now what we need to do, because we are still in Covid, as I keep saying, is what we need to do is some analysis as to why those referrals are happening. I do not live from my own perspective. I know that referrals are coming in in relation to money, because people are in crisis, etc. We know that there is money coming into local authorities in relation to the winter fund, poverty, etc, but that is increasing referrals. That could be early intervention and prevention. We want to separate that from the real child protection stuff that is coming in. Funding in relation to making sure that our workforce has the resources in it in relation to managing that first rather than just waiting for things to escalate. I would not say that it has gone out of fashion. I think that it is a priority. Crisis always comes first and then early intervention and prevention is something that we all want to do and is at the forefront of our thinking, but it does not always get the priority that it deserves. You are talking about priority focus and resource allocation, are not you? On page 36 of your evidence, you talk about—I will just read the sentence. Despite the above restrictions, many carers noted that for some children removal of the pressures of managing school resulted in a reducing in stress and anxiety and an increase in engagement with learning via remote routes. That is a very interesting observation. What are the lessons that we should take away from the experience that you are reporting in your evidence for some children? In relation to that, it is a really interesting topic that we had a discussion with at Social Work Scotland. It tended to focus on children with ASD, autism, where sometimes walking into large schools can be very quite traumatic for them. Lots of children there, lots of noise, so it heightens their anxiety. For a proportion, parents reported back to us that this made life easier for them and they were able to do that learning. What we need to take on board in relation to consultation with our education colleagues is that we need to look for smaller places where children with ASD are able to go into education and not have that heightened state of anxiety. That is easier said than done, obviously, but that would be a range, certainly from my own perspective, in relation to working collaboratively with education. That is what we are looking at, because we certainly received that information within the Lothian. There were some really good learning. Obviously, conversely, it did not work for other children as well, but it was an interesting fact and one that I think we need to keep a hold of in relation to our future planning for children with ASD in particular. On page 29, we know that this has been a lengthy and traumatic period of national and worldwide insecurity. I think that that is quite important to highlight that. Then, I was looking at parental mental health, domestic abuse, problematic parental alcohol or substance misuse. Obviously, with our remit, we are trying to be as holistic as possible, and it is not always that schools have a major part to play in their recovery, but I am interested in your perspectives about a multidisciplinary approach. Obviously, you have touched on that with early intervention and social work and community support services. There are so many agencies, and I am just a wee bit concerned that we are not as joined up as we could be. Have you got any perspectives on that? Yes, if you would like me to try to answer that. I think that there is a huge amount of work being done collaboratively across Scotland in relation to ensuring that we are not duplicating work. We have learned lessons from before, where everybody is doing the same thing. Your children's services board, whatever it is called, is called different things in different local authorities, but the Gifffet board that is called out my way, makes sure that we have the third sector, the voluntary sector education, community lifelong learning and employability housing and mental health services. We have the whole pronged round and health services around the table to ensure that we provide a holistic whole systems approach to supporting families. If we are going to do early intervention and prevention, and it is true as for them, we need to thank the families and the individuals, which I think we have all been guilty of in the past, identifying a individual rather than looking at the whole family system and making sure that we support the whole family in relation to going forward. It is certainly a focus in social work Scotland as to how we are all talking across the whole of Scotland. I hope that that would be the way that we are going to adopt and how we are going to measure our resources and put them all together holistically to support our communities. I would like to start by going back to your last line of question, convener, on the children families for whom lockdown provided an opportunity for engagement with education that was not happening before. That is the point that the Children's Commissioner made to us a few weeks ago. Joan, I am interested in your perspective on that. You are talking about the need quite rightly for us to bear this in mind, for social work teams to bear it in mind, with their future strategies for schools etc. Schools have now been back to something approaching normal since August. In-person learning has been the default since that point. From what you have seen and heard so far, have those families who were children who were re-engaged with education perhaps for the first time in quite some time through lockdown, through remote learning, have the learning at local authority at school level been preserved? Or are we already seeing instances of children who were disengaged pre-pandemic, engaged by the unique circumstances of remote learning? Are they starting to disengage again because the adaptions that were made for them have not been continued? Or are there good examples out there of schools, local authorities, social work teams etc. who have managed to continue that link with those for whom it was quite challenging before March of last year? I would probably have to go back to social work Scotland to gain more of my colleagues' overview in relation to this. I can speak from a Midlodian perspective, but I cannot speak from social work Scotland in relation to the return to work and how their learning has gone since the return to work. I do not know whether you want me to give an anecdote on relation to Midlodian, or would you prefer to have a Scotland-wide perspective, and I could get that back to you in writing? If I could be a bit cheeky in us for both, that would be great. If you have an anecdote that you can offer us now, I am sure that we would be interested in it, but yet a follow-up in writing would be great. We have one. In one particular school that a high school that springs to mind was someone who contacted us at the centre in relation to highlighting this, where three young people had really enjoyed their learning during lockdown. That head teacher has made a small provision of the school. She has been very, very fortunate. She has a school that has the capacity to do that in relation to engaging both the parents and the young people. We have family support workers in there to get the children back in. That has been staggered in times at the end of the school, because what parents have come back to us is that these three young individuals in particular really struggled to walk into the high school at the same time as everybody else, especially after a lockdown. They have made minor adjustments, which appear to have had good dividends at this moment in time. It is early days yet. I suppose that schools have been back. We are still impacted every day with Covid in relation to some classes not being able to take place, schools with additional support needs, et cetera. Two members and staff off, et cetera. That can have a huge impact in relation to the whole class attendance. I will go back to Social Work Scotland and get something in writing and be able to submit that to you. That would be much appreciated. This committee has been struggling for the past few weeks with how we have distinguished between the substantial amount of anecdotal evidence that we have now received and rigorous verifiable data that has been collected on just exactly how the pandemic has affected children, young people and their families. Precisely because of the issues that we have just discussed, where we know across the board that it has had negative consequences, there are unique circumstances where it has actually done the opposite. Even for those for whom this has been harmful, it has not inflicted the same level of harm on everyone. Mike, you mentioned the examples from other countries. I think that it was the US and the Netherlands that you used as examples of where surveys, diagnostic work, et cetera, had been done before targeted funds were deployed. I would be keen if you could expand a little bit on that. What would the NASB would like to see here in terms of further study, further evidence gathering before we deploy additional funds? Thanks, Ross. There is a tension here because you wonder if it is perhaps too late for that kind of work to be done. We would argue that it is not. We still need a national steer on the questions to ask, if you like. There is consistency in the questions being asked so that you can then rely on the data that you are getting and then better target who and where and what you need to target. I think that that has been missing and certainly has been the case in other countries. At the same time, it has been touched on earlier that there are kids out there who need help in all sorts of ways right now. If we can identify that locally and we have identified that locally, then let us try and give that help where we can. However, I still think that there is space for that more national direction in terms of a survey. I am heartened by the committee's desire to follow the money. I think that we have had frustrations in the past around Scottish attainment challenge money and people equity fund money in actually tracking how and where it is getting spent. Again, there have been suggestions at the beginning that all well will involve staff and trade unions in discussions and then very often that has not happened. I am heartened by that fact and I would fully support that, although I do appreciate that that perhaps brings an administrative burden and maybe there is some help needed there. The difficulties of tracking PEF money have been a long-running source of frustration empowerment. Paragraph 11 of your written submission might mention the need for on-going system-wide evaluation if we are to verify whether or not recovery is happening, but I am conscious that that could easily be done in a way that simply increases teacher work-code, support staff work-code, etc., in schools and at local authority level. What would an effective system of on-going evaluation look like? I hesitate to use the phrase a light-touch system. Do you see a system that does not unnecessarily increase work-code of those who are already overwhelmed? What you touch on there, Ross, is the need for much of that work to be done by people outside of the school but in conjunction with the school. I have some sympathy with local authority colleagues who we might look to do a lot of that work because they are familiar with the schools, but they have also been overwhelmed with a great deal of work during the pandemic, but that is where that kind of work would need to be done. Again, with a steer nationally from government on what it is that we are looking for and how we are going to collect that information and then put it down to local level to local authorities to work with their schools. As you say, there is always a danger in people being asked for more and more in terms of bureaucracy and that taking them away certainly at school level from what they want to do, which is to do the best for the kids that are in front of them. Turning to Jennifer and then Lauren on exactly the same question of effectively gathering data so that we can make targeted and then effective interventions, could you maybe cite other examples of on-going or planned work in this area? I think that our committee are minded to recommend that further work is done here, but it would be useful for us to know if COSLA, ADDES, et cetera, either have some on-going work in this area or work planned in this area to identify just exactly what the impact has been. We have had a lot of discussions around the disproportionate impact on children with additional support needs, but that in and of itself is a vast category. That is more than one in every four young people and from the discussions that we have just had, it has had a very different impact on children with autism compared to those with visual impairment or hearing impairment, et cetera, et cetera. It would be useful to know if there is any work in this area that is already going on and will provide us with the kind of information that we are looking for. Thank you. It is a good question. My initial reflection on that is that research methodology is vast in and of itself, obviously. We need to be very clear about what questions we are asking. How indeed did we arrive at the question? That always informs research, and then what is the methodology? There have been a few tools that I have already mentioned today, obviously, but the design of your methodology—I suppose that I am coming from a psychological perspective as a gender educational psychologist—is very much to inform what we do. In terms of examples, there was one—albeit, it was embedded in the ADES report, so we undertook some small-scale research to determine what was happening with regard to attendance and engagement of young people. As we were emerging into that first recovery period around attendance and engagement, we worked with the Children and Young People's Improvement Collaborative, SIPIC, which facilitated across six authorities and a number of schools. That used an improvement methodology, if you like. First of all, what is the question that you want to answer, and then what is the methodology that will best answer that question? That is one example. I think that there are other local authorities who may work locally with their universities, undertaking collaborative action research. Dundee City Council at the moment is undertaking collaborative action research across our schools in relation to the children whom most concern us, who are the children whom we think are most affected at the moment by a range of inequalities, but that is on a much larger scale. There are different examples. We need to do wider scoping around that. Another area of work, albeit one that is being undertaken by ADES at the moment, which is in the early stages and which is taking a collaborative approach to improvement, where the research is of a collaborative inquiry approach in relation to a range of different themes that should emerge for local authorities will be in a better position to report on that later next year. It is a good question, but I do not think that it is a simple answer. I think that focusing on what are some of the emerging things at the moment would indicate to some in the ADES report with regard to, for example, children and young people's speech and language needs at an early stage. That might answer one of the earlier questions about early intervention. I will be able to monitor what impact early intervention approaches around children's speech and language will have as a means of recovery, as well as children's longer-term wellbeing would be one example. Similarly, some of the work that John Frenant referred to with regard to virtual learning. There are, again, small-scale examples across authorities where children and young people are being supported to continue in their virtual learning. I suppose that, on a larger scale, the work that is taking place, for example, with eScoil is looking at how we can scale up virtual learning for those so that it becomes, perhaps, more of a universal experience without, in any way, taking away from the advantages of in-person learning. I hope that that is in some part answered your question. Absolutely. That was very useful. Thank you. I am conscious of the time, but, Laura, is there anything that you would like to add from a causal perspective on that? Yes. I would like to highlight that there is the start of next year, I believe, the health and wellbeing census and the parental involvement and engagement census. The results of that will be published. The research will be carried out starting next year, and it will be published towards the end of next year, I suppose. However, the health behaviour in the school-aged children's study with analysis of that will be published later in next year. Throughout the pandemic period, the engagement of the Children's Parliament, Young Scot and Youth Link in the Scottish Youth Parliament has been really important. They did some really good work around the lockdown low-down report, just in terms of evidence-gathering and understanding children and young people's perspectives. I think that your question was specifically around the evidence side of things, and that there is some work on the way and being undertaken to understand that so that we can move forward based on that. Thank you. That is all for me, convener. Thank you. Ross Greer. Oliver Mundell? Oliver Mundell? Oh, there he is. Thank you. I am just waiting to appear on the screen. I wanted to ask about the situation in rural Scotland through the pandemic, and whether the various witnesses had felt that we got the balance right. Even within my constituency, there seemed to be a real mix, so in some of the larger towns and settlements, there was lots of support and contact between young people and their schools, but in more rural and remote communities, that was not always there. I just wondered if that was something that anyone wished to reflect on. Anyone in particular? I would wonder myself in terms of ADES and how high up the priority list that was for directors of education across the country. Jennifer, that is over to you then. Thank you for your question. Rural communities, as far as ADES is concerned, absolutely is much a priority, because children and young people who live in rural communities have as much entitlement and need for educational support as those who live in more urban communities. There would have been some more challenges with regard to in-person support or access to attending school for those who would have perhaps been eligible in terms of their need or vulnerability, because of transport, I would imagine, would be one barrier. I think equally that some of the learning around virtual learning, for example, has in fact come from our rural and more communities. The western ales, for example, has led on areas around virtual learning for some time. ADES represents 32 local authorities in Scotland, and the support for children and young people in those communities has been a priority. There will have been, as I say, some geographic factors that have affected and have made accessibility perhaps in-person accessibility more challenging. Equally, as I said, there have been great lessons to learn from that as well. Do you feel that we have got the resourcing balance right? It was hard for you. You would be most familiar with Dundee. Do you think that there is a recognition among those heads from 32 local authorities that deliver education provision, whether it is during a pandemic or in normal times, that has different pressures and costs in rural communities? There will be some different pressures. I have mentioned one because of the schools that are geographically far spread apart, as they would be in Ireland or some other areas. There are different considerations, if you like, to have smaller urban authorities such as the one that I work in. I could not speak to the detail of that. Ultimately, it is for the local authority and in consultation with their head teachers to make the right decisions and the best decisions and to monitor that as closely as possible. I am sorry, but that is probably the best that I can answer your question. That is helpful. There are some others that I can be looking to come in and I will let you direct them. Yes. Mike Orbit is wanting to come in all over. Mike. Thank you, convener. I would echo the point that Jennifer made about much of the excellent work around digital learning. It was based on things that had already been going on previously in our rural communities, such as Argyll and Bute and so on, excellent work in advance of the pandemic. Nevertheless, we had quite a bit of feedback that, in terms of hardware, software and connectivity, there continued to be and continue to be issues in some of our rural communities around digital learning. That continues to be an issue with that kind of access. I do not want to go back to staffing again, but staffing of schools in rural areas remains a challenge. During the pandemic, when some staff have been off sick, it has been very difficult to get supply teachers in rural areas to support schools, so that has been another issue that has perhaps had an impact. Thank you. I think that Joan Trenant wanted to come in as well, Oliver. Okay, thank you. I mean that mine is not in relation to education per se, but I suppose that just in relation to social work Scotland, certainly holding meetings virtually meant that all 32 local authorities were present and vulnerable children, which included talking about their education. That was a theme that we talked about every single week, because we held weekly meetings at that point during lockdown, etc. And, although there were issues as there were across the whole of Scotland, and connectivity might just alluded to that, was one of them. There was lots of support there in relation to what other means it could adopt in relation to making sure that vulnerable children were seen and their needs were being responded to. From a social work Scotland perspective, it did not feel that it was inequitable, I suppose, in relation to discussing their needs across that meeting, so it was very much a focus of certain meetings going forward. Oliver, do you want to continue? I'm probably happy to leave it there. Obviously, the nature of the witnesses is that they've not got direct experience of more rural local authorities, but I was keen that that action was voiced. I'll leave the question there for me now. Thank you, Oliver. Willie Rennie. Thanks very much, convener. This is about the Morgan review and additional support for learning and needs. On a scale from 1 to 10, how close are we to meeting the vision of the Morgan review? Can I ask Jennifer about that first, please? On a scale of 1 to 10, I would be hard to quantify that. I looked again at the progress report in the last week, and I think that, in spite of the pandemic, there have been a number of the recommendations that are on track. There are some that have been delayed or postponed, but starting from the vision, for example, there's work being done with the inclusion ambassadors, and the vision has now been set and shared more widely. The work with GTCS Scotland in relation to the recommendations around teacher workforce and professional learning is under way. The recommendation in relation to pupil support assistance has been taken forward by the national steering group. There has been some work done, and it is one of the most critical recommendations, which is the one related to outcome measures. That has now to be taken and drawn into, if you like, or considered in relation to education reform. That recommendation was about looking at the visibility and the wider recognition of the outcomes that children and young people with additional support needs to achieve but are not always captured within the national performance framework. There is a strong need for that aspect of the ASL action plan to be progressed. It would be unwise to do that without taking it into consideration, into the education reform. I think that good progress has been made. I think that it's over five, if you had to pin me down, between five and 10, but I think that, in terms of the nine broad areas of recommendation, if you refer to the action plan, progress has been made in relation to them. My reading of the situation is that, on the substance of it, the position is quite stark. The numbers have been increasing in recent years. We are up at about a third, so it is a major proportion of the school population. Weights for diagnosis on a range of different needs is longer now. Support from the health service for mental health and so on is the weights are incredibly long and getting longer. The numbers of co-ordinated support plans have gone down in the past eight years. The funding is challenging, and referrals to social work has been difficult as well. Is the system genuinely coping? The ASL review, Angela Morgan's review, was written before, for example, some of the progress—I don't think that it can be seen in isolation, is what I'm trying to say. It has to be seen alongside, for example, the children and young people's mental health and wellbeing programme board. For example, in relation to waiting times for mental health support and diagnosis, those areas have to be considered in relation to the work that the programme board is taking around neurodevelopmental service specification. I think that there are five local authorities who are going to be undertaking pilots there, and that will inevitably support the shared approach, if you like, to assessment and intervention, so that, while diagnosis is absolutely important and critical for some children and families, we shouldn't and they shouldn't have to wait for that diagnosis for support to be in place. I think that the neurodevelopmental service specification has standards that will very much support that. I think that we have to look at the connectiveness, if you like, between the different areas that Angela Morgan's report allows us to do, if you like. It can't stand alone in isolation, and one of her recommendations indeed was about integrative policymaking across councils and their local partnerships. We would be wanting to see that integrated throughout a number of different areas, and not just education and additional support for learning. As far as the co-ordinated support plans and the numbers are lower, I don't think that that is a reflection of the plans and the planning that takes place for children, because our data suggests that there are still children with individual plans that may not all be co-ordinated support plans, and I don't think that it's necessarily a reflection of support not being available for children. However, what the CSP steering group or working group reported on just yesterday clearly has a number of recommendations around increasing awareness, again, of the legal basis, if you like, for co-ordinated support plans, as well as how it is integrated, if you like. We have spoken quite a bit today about bureaucracy, and it is important that the planning for co-ordinated support plans is integrated with other aspects of planning. Again, that is one of the recommendations from that report. I don't know if I've answered all aspects of your question. That's fine. We heard from the EIS a couple of weeks ago who were very concerned about the consequences of the inadequacies in the system and the effects, therefore, on teachers and what they had to cope with in the classroom. Are we providing enough support as we've moved towards mainstreaming in order for teachers to be able to cope? We know that the demand has increased through the pandemic. It has exacerbated existing issues and challenges. Are we giving enough support for teachers who are on the front line coping with that? I think that the support for teachers and support staff—there is a large part of the workforce that supports children with additional support needs—has to be a continuing feature of schools and local authority workforce planning. You have pointed out that we have about a third of children and young people identified with additional support needs. Therefore, our approach to supporting teachers and their support staff has to be one that is much more universally based. If a third of children in some classrooms have additional support needs and in some cases it may be more, that has to be incorporated into the classroom organisation, the accessibility of classrooms. We have to take that into account in long-term planning. I think that the NQT induction has to have additional support needs as our core feature. Jennifer, can I stop you there? Sorry, Jennifer. My question is, are they getting enough support now? You have described what needs to happen in the structure, but are they getting support now? I would like to bring Mike in after you have answered that. If you could answer that briefly, please, if that is possible. Are we getting enough support now for teachers? Yes, I think that there is all the more that we could do, but, from my perspective and the ADES members that I represent, it is work that is continuous. It is a part of day-to-day experience of what we do. Mike, what is your perspective? I echo many of the concerns that you have expressed there. I point to pre-pandemic. Pre-pandemic, we were already saying that there was too much pressure regarding the mainstream agenda without enough support in schools, whether that is for nurtured units or whether it might be individualised or small group support that is often needed. It was already an issue. It has undoubtedly been made worse during the pandemic. The Morgan review—I have got my notes to always mention it whenever we mention the OECD review, because there is a fear that it has been buried and half forgotten. We need to have those recommendations implemented, but, at the moment, we would think that there needs to be much more resource devoted to supporting additional support needs people. So one final question to you and Mike. On a scale of 1 to 10, where are we on the Morgan review? I mean, I don't want to give you a glib answer to that, but much, much more needs to be done, and there's not enough being done right. Okay, thanks, convener. It doesn't sound as if it's above five. No. Mike O'Mara, four. Did you say four? A glib four, okay. Mike O'Mara. Thanks to all colleagues for the evidence so far. The panel will be pleased to know that the evidence is chiming with the evidence that we've had in recent weeks regarding the lack of overall analysis of need that's been undertaken in Scotland. I think that we've heard that loud and clear today, not just in your answers to questions from colleagues but also the written evidence. It's in that context that I wanted to ask about changes to the Scottish attainment challenge. One of that is being touched on one of the key sources of resource that councils draw on for the provision. Last week, you'd be aware that the Scottish attainment challenge was reformed. That announcement detailed £35.5 million of year-on-year cuts to the funding, including £17 million from PEF, but it saw the reallocation of £43 million from the nine most deprived authorities to spread it across 32 local authorities. That means savage eye-watering cuts to some of those local nine original challenge authorities. Across the panel, do you think that those reforms would be beneficial or damaging to the recovery of education for the most deprived pupils in the most deprived communities in Scotland? You can maybe start by asking our colleague from COSLA. In terms of the Scottish attainment challenge announcement, we're working with the Scottish Government closely on the next steps and how we work collaboratively through the education council and through local partnerships in closing the attainment gap. It's important that we avoid a top-down approach to setting expectations and ambitions and avoid excess bureaucracy and reporting, but some of the key principles in terms of accountability are really important, ensuring that we've got system-wide delivery of recognising the specific contribution of education to reduce the impact of poverty while at the same time recognising that the changes in the ways that we need to tackle poverty are not simply located within a school and we need to make sure that through the work to develop and update the next tackling poverty plan that we're taking a wider view of that and not simply looking at schools has been the answer to tackling some of those system-wide issues. If I can, I'm not sure that that's an answer to the question that I asked, which was the impact on children, the most deprived children in the most deprived communities in Scotland, which are set to have significant cuts to their budgets as a result of the new agreed formula. Do you think that it will improve outcomes or make it more challenging for local authorities and those nine local authorities to cope? I think that it's not a straightforward answer because we're not looking at that in isolation to the wider perspective on how local authorities and their partners work to support children and families who are experiencing poverty and deprivation. That's one part of the picture, but we need to look at that in the holistic sense and make sure that we've got the adequate support from a range of services and that they're all adequately funded and that we're not just looking at one small part of it, although I understand that it isn't seen as a small part of it. That is one part of the picture. Okay, can I come to Jennifer King from Dundee City Council? I earlier declared an interest as an elected member of Dundee City Council. I'm aware from speaking to officers, Ms King, that we're looking at potentially upwards of £4 million of cuts in Scottish entertainment challenging funding to Dundee. What kind of adjustments are you looking at in the department to cope with that cut? Thank you for your question. We're looking at that. I'm in mind that we have the next few years, obviously, with the, I think we would use the word tapering of the funding, and the initial considerations we're giving are in relation to, as other authorities, I imagine will be, because what the attainment challenge has allowed us to do is to test out, I suppose, and then build on interventions that have had an impact. We've done some work in Dundee as you're probably aware around, with our nurseries around children's speech and language development, we're currently doing work with the Robert Owens Centre, and these have all been capacity building measures. Those are areas where they have had an impact and we have built skills within the wider workforce. Those would be the areas that we'd have to take into consideration with the forward planning. There will be some challenging decisions to make. I don't think that it would be unrealistic not to anticipate that, but we have to look at it in relation to where has there been learning that has enabled us to build that more widely. I suppose that I would also follow on from the point that Laura made in that we have to look at it in connection with other sources of funding, if you like, that we don't know the longer term around that. Much of the approach around community, mental health and wellbeing, for example, is for children and families aged five to 25 in the case of care experienced young people. That's working more closely with our community providers who work in support with those in education. It has to be looked at very widely, and I think that the decisions that we have to take going forward have to be done in collaboration with our other partners in the local authority and indeed with our colleagues and partners in NHS. I appreciate my concern as a native Dondonian about what you are describing, the good work that has happened in recent years, being under threat and having to be re-evaluated. Can we afford that at a time when need is increasing? Can I ask the other two panellists in relation to the revision and the most areas of highest deprivation, what they think? Can we meet need when we are cutting resources in that way? I am a social worker to trade, so I am not an educationalist although we are part of the education directorate, and I am not one of the nine local authorities that was a challenged local authority. Obviously, when budgets are cut, the impact will be felt across the board, but as my colleagues have already alluded to, this is multifaceted. This is a time probably more than ever that we need to continue to pull together in relation to finding a solution to that. It is not what anybody wants to hear, but what we have evidenced through this pandemic is that collaborative work is at the fore of everything that we do, so hopefully we can continue that and find solutions that minimise any impact on families. I understand the rationale to try and aid families in schools and in areas outside the nine local authorities where poverty has been identified, but to take the money away from those nine authorities, the most deprived authorities, in order to do that, will inevitably lead to some negative impact in those nine authorities. If I can, convener, I want to come on to a different issue if that is okay. It relates to something that I have asked a lot of questions about, which is ventilation, which may seem a little bit of a jump for some people in terms of the questioning, but in terms of our means of ensuring that we have continuous education in our schools, it is one of the very key issues that ensure that we have that. I think that our colleague from the NSUWT has done some survey work or spoken to members. Can you maybe give us any kind of feedback in terms of what your understanding is on the current situation relating to ventilation in schools and whether it is deemed to be adequate by your colleagues? Obviously, the commitment was made to purchase CO2 monitors across the country. We have had patchy feedback on that. I will give you an example. We have a local authority where not only installed CO2 monitors in every teaching area, but they are linked to Wi-Fi, and they are monitored constantly by local health and safety officers. If there is a feeling that air quality is poor, they take immediate action. A number of other authorities, probably half, have bought mobile monitors, so they are only in classrooms some of the time. There are also issues about the installation of some of those monitors, some being too near windows etc. There is a real issue about the quality of the data that some local authorities are gathering. Obviously, at the moment, another new variant our members are more anxious than ever that there should be good ventilation and good air quality in their classrooms. Certainly, in some areas, we do not think that we can say that. The commitment from the Scottish Government was that that would be in 100 per cent of classrooms. Has that happened? We were told that there is access to a monitor in 100 per cent of classrooms, but if that is a mobile monitor that is only in your classroom or your teaching area briefly and then taken around the school, I do not see how that can give us reasonable data to then act upon. I turn now to James Dornan, who I think will probably be our final questioner. Thank you, convener. I was not going to come in at this stage, but just to Michael Marra's points, can we not clarify here that there is x amount of money to go about? There is not just poverty in cities such as Glasgow and indeed that there is poverty in council areas, in cities, constituencies right across the country. It is only right that we target those who need it, not based on their geographical area but on their need. Is it not also true that the co-zones themselves, the Labour-inverclyde council leader Stephen McCabe, who is the co-zones spokesperson for children and young people, welcomed this new funding allocation? It seems fairer that Michael rightly defends his constituents, but he has the chamber to do that. Here, we have meant to be looking at the best for children across the country, not simply in the constituencies or the city that we represent. I think that that was perhaps more of a rhetorical contribution than a question. Michael, you have made your feelings clear on that. I would like to thank Jennifer King, Laura Carvin, Mike Corbett and Joan Trenent, who have been our witnesses this morning. Thank you for giving us of your time and presenting us with your evidence and being so willing to say your piece, which is what we depend on. So the public part of today's meeting is now at an end. I will now suspend the meeting. Can I ask members to reconvene on Microsoft Teams, which will allow us to consider our final agenda items in private? Thank you again and good morning.