There will be a division.

For

Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)

Against

Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 211 disagreed to.

Section 23 is on secure accommodation. Amendment 108, in the name of Roz McCall, is grouped with amendments 109, 221, 155, 156, 110, 111, 213 and 157 to 161.

I am curious to know what is in the wording of my amendment that would preclude your supporting it when you have said at length that a ministerial process is taking place. I am a bit bemused about what is in there that is making it so difficult.

Martin Whitfield, I know that a lot of conversation is going on around you, but I ask you to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 218, please.

Our next agenda item is an evidence-taking session on the draft Provision of Early Learning and Childcare (Specified Children) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2024. I thank the Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise for staying with us, and I welcome the Scottish Government officials Joanna Mackenzie, team leader, targeted childcare and family wellbeing, and Nico McKenzie-Juetten, who is a lawyer from the legal directorate.

I invite the minister to speak to the draft instrument for up to three minutes.

The next group is on the impact, operation and commencement of the act. Amendment 218, in the name of Martin Whitfield, is grouped with amendments 219 and 220.

I will just take a deep breath. That concludes our consideration of the bill at stage 2. I thank the minister and her supporting officials for their attendance throughout. However, our next agenda item also involves the minister. I will suspend the meeting to allow for a change of officials.

We may have the highest level of pupil support assistance, as outlined in the cabinet secretary’s response, but with a marked rise in the number of students with additional support needs—it is now almost 37 per cent of all pupils—can the cabinet secretary say what further specific measures are in place to increase the number of ASN teachers and support staff without abdicating the responsibility to local authorities?

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee.

For our budget scrutiny, the committee focused on issues including funding for further education and local government education budgets. The work of colleges and their funding allocations have been a considerable focus for the committee throughout this parliamentary session. Our colleges, which are largely dependent on public funds, are facing significant financial challenges. The committee has repeatedly raised concerns about the extent and impact of those challenges, not only in our scrutiny ahead of this budget but in our scrutiny of the 2023-24 budget and in our college regionalisation inquiry report.

Ahead of last year’s budget, the sector projected significant staff reductions of around 200 to 300 full-time equivalent staff per year from 2022-23 to 2026-27. Those projections were based on a flat cash settlement for the sector across that period.

Although an allocation of £701.7 million was initially announced for colleges for 2023-24, which was £26 million higher than the year before, the Scottish Government took the decision to withdraw those additional funds. Audit Scotland pointed out that that meant that the Scottish Government’s funding for the sector had reduced by 8.5 per cent in real terms between 2021-22 and 2023-24. Similarly, universities saw £20 million of their funding removed. Further in-year cuts of £56 million across university and college sectors during 2023-24 have placed further financial pressure on them.

We know that colleges are critical in providing opportunities for learners of all ages and, importantly, in ensuring the realisation of the Scottish Government’s national strategy for economic transformation, or NSET. The committee is concerned about the scale of the cuts that are projected by the sector and the impact that they will have. The committee has therefore asked whether the Scottish Government has modelled the potential impact of college staffing cuts on its NSET. I would welcome a response to that from the minister, cabinet secretary or whoever closes the debate later today.

The question is even more pertinent for 2024-25, given the Scottish Government’s decision to reduce the resource allocation to colleges by 8.4 per cent in cash terms and 9.9 per cent in real terms, compared with last year’s budget. Universities will also have a reduction in their resource allocation from the £809.2 million that was initially announced for 2023-24 to the £760.7 million figure that was announced for 2024-25, which is a reduction of 5.9 per cent in cash terms.

The committee recognises that colleges need more resource, but also acknowledges the challenging nature of the current financial climate for the Scottish Government. The committee has therefore consistently raised the need for colleges to have as many financial and operational flexibilities as possible.

We noted that the Scottish Funding Council introduced some flexibilities for colleges this academic year, including reducing the level of activity that colleges must deliver for their funding and ensuring that a proportion—20 per cent—of their funding is not directly related to the delivery of credits and, therefore, cannot be clawed back if activity targets are not met, to recognise the semi-fixed costs that colleges have. In his evidence to the committee, the Minister for Higher and Further Education and Minister for Veterans explained that colleges had not used those flexibilities as expected, largely due to a “lack of understanding”. I hope that the minister will continue to work with colleges to ensure that those flexibilities are fully understood and, therefore, to allow colleges the opportunity to really benefit from them.

The minister has committed to exploring what other flexibilities are possible for colleges as part of tertiary sector reform. We welcome that commitment, but we urge him to consider what further interim flexibilities are possible, ahead of such reforms. Colleges cannot afford to wait.

In scrutinising funding for local government education budgets, the committee took evidence from the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Scotland local government group. Witnesses from ADES welcomed the fact that education budgets have been protected, but they highlighted that, as a result, other areas of local authority spending have borne the burden of savings targets. They also highlighted that savings elsewhere still have an impact, because education depends on other council services to operate.

The committee noted that ring-fenced grants and directed funds—including the £130 million for pupil equity funding—make a significant contribution to the spending on education by local authorities. However, witnesses highlighted that when such directed or ring-fenced funds are provided for the first year but are not uprated for subsequent years, that amounts to a cut in funding, with local authorities needing to make up the shortfall from elsewhere in their budgets. Given the pressure on local government budgets and the fact that inflation remains high, the committee believes that, when the Scottish Government provides directed or ring-fenced funds, it should be clear about how it will uprate those funds for subsequent years.

As part of their evidence, witnesses also highlighted the fact that, on several policies, including free school meals and absolute teacher numbers, inputs rather than outputs continue to be measured. In our letter to the cabinet secretary, we reiterated that it is of critical importance that there is a focus on the outcomes that policies are expected to achieve, rather than the inputs. We also stressed the need for such evidence-based decision making, especially at times of financial constraint, to ensure the most effective use of funding. It is essential that the Scottish Government understands what the impact of policies will be when it decides which ones to pursue. After all, we know that such choices will be difficult to make, and having evidence on their impact will go some way in helping to justify and understand those choices.

I am conscious of time. The committee recognises the pressure on the Scottish Government’s budget. We further recognise that the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s financial outlook indicates that such financial challenges will continue over the medium term and that, consequently, the Scottish Government will not be able to keep funding all public services to the level at which they have previously been funded.

It is essential that the Scottish Government is clear about what its priorities are, and that it communicates that to the people and organisations that work in, and are reliant on, the sector, to ensure that there is widespread understanding of what is to be achieved.