Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is very helpful. I mentioned the young persons guarantee because there is a quantifiable £10 million investment in that. More generally, it is clearly not just young people but those in the most-deprived areas who have the most fragile learning experiences and are the most likely to have been impacted by the pandemic more generally. Although I have follow-up questions on the young persons guarantee, I want to show an awareness of that.

I see from the papers that 2,438 students were recorded as having enrolled in the young persons guarantee and that 53.6 per cent of those were from the four most-deprived Scottish index of multiple deprivation deciles, with 18.2 per cent coming from the most-deprived decile. Are you comfortable with that balance? Should it be greater? Do you have some thoughts about that? Do we need more intensive funding? How would we follow the outcomes of that? If you were back at this committee next year and you said it was 2,438 students last year, how many would have entered in the following year? What would be the breakdown by SIMD and what would be the outcomes for those students? It would be very helpful to know that.

When I spoke to Derek Smeall, the principal of Glasgow Kelvin College, he was very sighted on the challenges that the sector faces, but it is well up on those challenges and is well placed to address them. I want to make sure that appropriate funding streams get to the colleges, to allow them to address the challenges.

The question is about how we monitor the outcomes for those 2,438 students, what number of students we anticipate being involved next year, any breakdown of outcomes and how the young persons guarantee is spread across the country, so we get beneath the figures and do some monitoring work as a committee.

Thank you. That would be very helpful. I have no further questions.

I am not sure who does the monitoring. The young persons guarantee is funded by the funding council. Is it the funding council that measures the outcomes?

Can I ask for that now rather than wait until next year? I think that the committee is interested in on-going monitoring of this rather than rehearsing this again next year. That is the point I was making. There was £10 million for the young persons guarantee. Would the funding council have use for additional funds for additional places next year, and would you be keen to see those targeted at the SIMD bottom 20 or 40 per cent? I am trying to find out what the funding council thinks about this instead of its just telling me the numbers.

I had better dig out my paper. You called me sooner than I expected, convener.

This is all good—it is really interesting. I will keep my powder dry until the private session, when I will give some thoughts on the apprenticeship levy, but that was an interesting exchange.

I want to turn to the role of colleges in helping to address the skills gap and align the training needs of business with education. I am interested in the funding council’s submission on the young persons guarantee, which states:

“SFC secured £10m from the fund in 2020-21 to work with colleges and universities to develop proposals to meet the aims of the fund. This collaboration resulted in a series of interventions, linked to key priority sectors, which included courses to increase the employability skills of those furthest from the job market”.

It is those funds from the labour market that I am interested in. I would like to know a bit more from the Scottish Funding Council about the colleges and the spending of that £10 million.

I met the principal of Glasgow Kelvin College the other day, and he told me that a lot of very short courses—sometimes of as little as 10 hours at a time, which are pre-employability intensive work with people furthest away from the labour market—have effectively disappeared during Covid and that colleges serving the most deprived parts of the country have major challenges ahead of them. In that context, I would like to know a lot more about the £10 million. How is that helping those furthest away from the labour market, and what is the role of colleges in that?

Depending on what I hear, I might have a couple of short supplementary questions on that theme. One of the representatives from the funding council is probably best placed to answer.

No, I do not.

Thank you, Laura. I anticipated that you would say that, and it sounds eminently reasonable.

Your submission notes that there are already “significant reporting requirements” with the moneys that local authorities get, and that COSLA is concerned about any additional reporting requirements. However, we are Scotland’s Education, Children and Young People Committee, and given that there is a significant investment of £145.5 million in addition to the core education budget going to local authorities, we are seeking to understand how that money is deployed.

We get that there is a need for local flexibility. However, do you think that it would be reasonable for COSLA or local authorities to provide reasonable detail on how many primary and secondary school teachers have been employed; how many additional support needs staff have been deployed; the purpose and role of those staff; and what a positive outcome would look like for that spend?

I know that that sounds hugely bureaucratic. I know that schools know their kids best and that local authorities know their local communities best. I get all that. However, at some point, the committee will say to the Scottish Government, “You have put that money in, so what results have you got for it?”

We cannot just scrutinise the Government; we must also shine a light on how local authorities and COSLA view that spend and on what the benefits of it have been through Covid. Perhaps you could say what the benefits of the £80 million that has already been spent during Covid have been, and what you anticipate that the committee could do to measure positive outcomes in the years ahead for that significant additional spend.

I will be brief, convener. Just to be dispassionate about it, I think that the committee wants to analyse the impact of the spend, which is an important issue. One number that I did not give earlier was the £240 million for additional staffing during Covid, and the £145.5 million that I have already mentioned went into a core education funding budget. I am putting that on the record because we have to ensure that when we compare figures from one year to the next we are comparing apples with apples.

Underlying all this, though, is the need for a robust reporting exercise by local authorities on the number of temporary posts that existed—and the areas in which they existed—the year before Covid, through Covid and the first year after Covid in a way that is not bureaucratic—

I will not push further on that, and I know that that was a very detailed question to ask you to respond to at committee, but if COSLA could have a think about that and perhaps give us additional information, that would be genuinely welcome. We are not seeking to be awkward about it, and I get the point that there are still challenges, but we need to follow the money from Government to local authorities and from local authorities to delivery at a local level. Any additional information that you could give would be helpful.

We have Mike Corbett here, and he could give a union perspective. Mike, have there been discussions with union representatives and local authorities or COSLA, given the amount of additional money that is going into the system—quite rightly, as the need is clearly there—about how the money could best be deployed and about ensuring that there are permanent contracts? Has the focus been on additional support needs or on lost learning in secondary schools among pupils who are getting towards exams, for instance? Is it on primary schools? Is it all of the above?

The important thing is to ask what discussions are taking place between local authorities, COSLA and union representatives about the best way to shape and direct that spend.