Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am asking not only about finance but about the quality of the commissioned specialist support. It is sometimes commissioned through the NHS, sometimes through integration joint boards or individual local authorities and sometimes through education services. One provider might have a patchwork of funding. That happens not just in Glasgow but across the country. Something clearly needs to be addressed. Whether the national care service addresses that is another matter, but there may be an opportunity for the national care service to address some of it.

It will only take half an hour, convener. [Laughter.]

We are talking a lot about the point that there is not much in the bill and that it is a framework bill, but I am trying to mention things that are in the bill. Witnesses have not really latched on to the things that are in the bill; they have taken us back to the abstract. It would have been helpful if witnesses had latched on to what is in the bill rather than what is not in the bill. That would have helped—

Absolutely, although I have a supplementary question first that follows on from Mr Marra’s exchange with the witnesses. I am a wee bittie concerned about the idea of the national care service potentially leading to people working in silos, with less communication. I hope that I can get some reassurances on that.

My understanding is that, way before health and social care partnerships and integration joint boards were a thing—we are now moving, potentially, to a national care service with local care boards—the police, social work, housing, third sector, schools and childcare were all talking to one another as best practice anyway. Sometimes, the practitioners say that, irrespective of the structures that are put in place, they will get on with delivering best practice. The question is whether the structures facilitate and support that best practice and drive consistency.

The committee has to decide whether a national care service is the best thing to proceed with. I suppose that I am looking for reassurance that, irrespective of whether it goes ahead, you are confident that that best practice, which I saw happening in Glasgow before health and social care integration and before we had spoken about a national care service, will continue. Mr Burns spoke eloquently about some of the progress that has been made in Glasgow.

What reassurances can you give that the concern about silo working might be a wee bittie of a red herring? Can there be some reassurances?

Okay, deputy convener. I want to finish off this line of questioning, which I think is important.

When I raised the issue in the chamber, I added the caveat that we cannot just magic up money to address the funding gap. However, the direction of travel, aspiration and policy are all about working towards ending that divergence. Given that 43 per cent of the young people from the most deprived areas who are doing undergraduate courses at university started their careers at college, we can see that colleges do fantastic work. I do not want that work to be put at risk. As and when resources arrive, minister, do you agree that the desirable direction of travel is towards closing the gap?

I absolutely accept that. When I raised the issue in Parliament, I—

It is almost as if we had planned it, deputy convener.

A student at Glasgow Kelvin College or any other college may be studying for a higher national certificate in social science at Scottish credit and qualifications framework level 7—I will put my teeth in there—which is the equivalent of an undergraduate first-year social science course at university. Why is there more funding for that student if they go to university than if they go to college?

Derek Smeall from Glasgow Kelvin College and others told the committee that they were concerned about how we estimate completion rates in Scotland’s colleges. For example, if a young person starts a course for a few days, does not like it and switches to another course, or if a college student gets offered a well-paid job in a sector in which they are already trained, that might count as non-completion. In Scotland, we gather the statistics in a very different way from how it is done in England. Audit Scotland has also raised those concerns. Although I absolutely agree that we want to improve the current non-completion levels, we need to ensure that those levels consistently reflect what is actually happening in colleges and that we are measuring positive outcomes, because we should not use arbitrary data that might not be relevant. Will you take that on board?

Again, the evidence session has progressed quite appropriately for the direction of my questions. We have been looking at the future of colleges more generally, but I will refer specifically to the situation in Glasgow.

When college regionalisation first happened, there was concern that community-based colleges and very localised provision such as the pre-employability work that Ruth Maguire and I highlighted in previous sessions would be squeezed out. However, regionalisation has not made that happen. There has been a flourishing of community-based, grass-roots development to enable those who are furthest away from education to get involved in college, including in Glasgow Kelvin College—I thank you for the visit that we have spoken about, minister.

However, there are further reforms down the line. Last year, the Scottish Funding Council spoke about the need for Glasgow’s colleges to work closely together. At that time, there was concern that that could mean a further merger in the Glasgow region—something that I have consistently opposed and that I think would be a negative thing.

The Glasgow Colleges Regional Board has been described as “transactional” and as a duplication of the work of the Glasgow colleges group, in which the college principals get together as a senior team to get on with the job of delivering for Glasgow and beyond. What assurances can the minister give that Glasgow’s three highly successful colleges are secure in their future and that their grass-roots work will continue? If any reform is needed in Glasgow, despite the good work that has been done so far, perhaps it is the GCRB that, although it has been doing a good job up to now, may have served its purpose.

I know that my question is lengthy, but this may be worth noting. I understand that the Scottish Funding Council has asked the Glasgow Colleges Regional Board to decide what future reform may look like, including whether there is a future role for the GCRB. That is pretty unfair on the regional board, which may potentially have to decide on its own future.

There is a lot to unpack there, minister. Given the time constraints, I will not come back in—I wanted to throw all of that in at the same time, because I was not sure whether I would get a supplementary question.

That is a helpful answer. I raised that question with you previously in the chamber, so I am following through on a more general line of questioning. I picked the example of social science deliberately because there are no laboratory or significant infrastructure overheads; the course simply involves young people interacting with a lecturer or tutor. I do not see, therefore, what the additional cost for universities would be, unless the point is that a social science degree can cross-subsidise other activities at university.

I understand that the average student reimbursement rate for college is £5,054, whereas it is £7,558 for a university student. The difference is quite striking. When I raised the issue with you in the chamber, you said that those matters will have been discussed in on-going dialogue—not only through that, I should point out—with the Scottish Funding Council, Colleges Scotland and Universities Scotland. Can you give me any more details on how those discussions are going?

It will be a brief line of questioning, because I am mopping up some of the questions that three of my colleagues have had the opportunity to ask before we moved on to two subsequent themes.

Before he moved on to ask about another matter, Mr Marra sought additional information from the witnesses in order for us to best represent them when we make our asks of Government during the budget process. We should be clear that that is not how the budget process works. This committee could make recommendations to Government about additional funds for the sector, but we would also have to say from where that money should be taken. It is important to put that on record rather that raise expectations about things that the committee cannot deliver.

I want to explore the differential between the local authority sector and the PVI sector. I am conscious that there are on-going pay award negotiations for local government employees for 2022-23, which I think include childcare workers. If I have my numbers right, the offer that is currently on the table would see an award for some of the lowest-paid childcare workers in local authorities—those on the real living wage—of around 9.43 per cent.

In setting the PVI sector hourly rate, what modelling work does each local authority do to ensure that the PVI sector can pay the 10.1 per cent uplift in the real living wage? Can you share that information with the committee and say how you ensure that that can happen? So far, we have intentions for sustainability in the sector, but we cannot see how that will be done. Will Wendy Brownlie say a little about the pending pay award for 2022-23 for educationalists in the early years in her local authority and how that washes through to the PVI sector?