Chamber and committees

Last academic year, the SFC introduced a tolerance of 2 per cent in college credit targets. This year, it has introduced new flexibilities. I will continue to engage with the SFC, as will Mr Dey, in relation to the assessment of those flexibilities and how those allow our colleges to become more sustainable in the longer term, which is the challenge.

Yes, but that is why the teacher audit is the answer. It will give us the granular data at national level that we will need to plan for, say, the reduction in teacher class contact time, which I think is really important. We will need additional teachers in the system to deliver on that commitment, and we need to be mindful of what that will look like.

I am concerned by some of the evidence that the committee has heard on teacher numbers, because we could get to a position where it might be suggested that, if I just let go, everything would be okay. I go back to the position of the previous cabinet secretary last December. That was not the case then, and I would really worry about our moving away from that model.

However, the member has made an important point. In my experience, the number of teachers in a school is usually calculated on the basis of the population and the number of pupils in the school. If your school roll is increasing, you might, say, gain a depute, but those calculations are made at the local authority level.

I do not think that there are extra teachers floating around in the system, if that is what last week’s panel was suggesting. What I have seen from my experience in schools is that any additionality in the system is used to close the poverty-related attainment gap. As the member alluded to, that might come not in the form of classroom teachers, but in the form of attendance officers, health and wellbeing support or whatever.

I go back to the point that the audit of where we are nationally will give us a granular picture. There were some recent press reports—I am not looking at Mr Rennie—about the number of classes with more than 30 pupils, but my current pupil teacher ratio is extremely low. We need to look at how class sizes work at a local authority level, given that we have more teachers in the system now. I am sorry if I have presupposed your question, Mr Rennie.

There are inherent risks, but I go back to Shirley-Anne Somerville’s experience last December—the Government provided an extra £145 million, but there were fewer teachers to show for it. Trust is not a one-way street. When the Government provides that additionality, we will look to recoup it if it is not invested in teachers. Fundamentally, that is because we believe that good-quality learning and teaching is what makes the difference in closing the poverty-related attainment gap.

I would like us to go back, in our parliamentary debates and more broadly in Scottish education, to our conversation about good-quality pedagogy and how it can make a difference in our schools. That is the silver bullet in all of this, but some of the recent discussion about closing the gap has moved us away from that. We need to go back to talking about the role of the teacher, the importance of good-quality learning and teaching and how that can raise attainment for all and close the gap.

On the practicalities of my recouping it?

As cabinet secretary, I have not discussed that with colleges. I suspect that Mr Dey has, as Minister for Higher and Further Education.

Mr Greer raises an important point about the accessibility of childcare and where that provision exists. If that is a bar to how people engage with their education or it prevents their engagement with it because there are no childcare facilities, that would really concern me.

I do not want to comment on the specifics of individual colleges making decisions about their estate—that is for them. More generally, however, the issue is challenging. I would be keen to pick that up with Mr Dey, although I think that he has been pursuing the matter with the college sector.

At this point, I will bring in Stephen Pathirana.

I do not think that I could compel colleges to do that.

My own view, and that of the Scottish Government, is that there should not be any compulsory redundancies. To that end, Mr Dey has been engaging closely with the SFC on the issue, on promoting fair work principles and on adhering to our commitment to apply grant conditionality, which was set out in the Bute house agreement. In our engagement with the SFC and with the college sector directly we have been clear about our expectations on redundancies.

I recognise that a number of challenges exist here but, as far as I am aware, I cannot unpick the ONS reclassification, which predates my time in office by nearly 10 years.

I might bring in Stephen Pathirana on that. I am not sure that the flexibilities would be ring fenced for that specific purpose.

The current economic environment is very challenging, as I intimated in my earlier responses to Mr Kerr and Ms Thomson. It is fair to say that the flat-cash settlement for 2023-24 has posed a number of challenges to institutions, and I will continue to work with the SFC and the sector to support the strategic change that we need.

I might bring in Stephen Pathirana to talk about the progress that has been made with the SFC. However, if it would be helpful to the committee, in advance of conversations and evidence sessions on the budget, I would be more than happy to provide written evidence in that respect as a supplement to some of the evidence that you might receive.

Is the question about whether we should almost prioritise attendance over other interventions?

As I have said to the committee on a number of occasions now, the Government is currently operating in a very challenging financial climate. Part of the reason for that is the number of public sector pay deals that we have settled; we have done that in the right space, but it costs money. We have to balance our books; after all, we cannot borrow money as a Government might usually do.

The £46 million represents a relatively small fraction—just over 2 per cent—of the nearly £2 billion that we provide to the SFC. That funding was, as the member has alluded to, meant to support strategic change in the sectors; however, it was not part of the core funding for colleges and universities that the SFC had already announced in April 2023, and I am not aware of any projects having been adversely affected as a result, given that this was transition funding that was meant to support the work more broadly.