���˿���

That is an important point, and I very much recognise the challenge and the opportunity that the flexible workforce development fund has provided. We reduced the allocation in 2022-23 and no final decision has been made on the fund. We are working to confirm the final position shortly, and I will be happy to provide the committee with an update. Obviously, that is part of budgetary negotiations, which have, as I have said on a number of occasions today, been very challenging. There is significant pressure, not just in education and schools but right across Scottish Government and our agency budget.

However, I appreciate the convener’s point about the uncertainty that that has caused for colleges and employers. We are working really hard with our partners to confirm the position as quickly as possible. I apologise that I cannot be more direct with you today, because those discussions are on-going as part of the budgetary negotiations.

I will be happy to provide that.

Precisely.

The role of Government in the college sector is entirely different from its role in the school sector. I do not accept Mr Rennie’s comparison between the two. We do not get involved in operational decisions that are for our colleges to make, because they are independent.

I hear what Mr Rennie has outlined and intimated, and I agree that challenges undoubtedly exist, but to compare the colleges situation with the one that we recently faced in our schools is not fair.

The responsibilities for some of that rest with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, and I do not want to speak on her behalf. However, the outcome of the current review of ring fencing will be taken into account and confirmed as part of the Scottish Government—[Interruption.]

You ask whether I have engaged with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance on the issue. Yes, I have, at numerous points during the recess period and more recently, in relation to how this will work. My officials and I are keen to build in an assurance and accountability framework that will protect education spend to some extent, because we need to recognise that, although education is delivered at a local level, there are pockets of education spend that are ring fenced by Government, for what I think are good reasons.

You allude to the issue of the pupil teacher ratio, which I think was raised in the committee’s meeting last week. Members will forgive me if I am incorrect on this, but, as officials and I have confirmed, we have not moved away from the pupil teacher ratio—there has not been a change in relation to that. In relation to teacher numbers, we can—

Okay. I will leave it there. I have some views on the issue.

First, I will focus on the broader suggestion that I think the committee heard last week in relation to falling pupil rolls and how we plan appropriately for the workforce of the future. We have already committed to a teacher audit in that space to look at planning for the future and how we ensure that we have the right number of teachers for the vacancies that we have. That audit must also take cognisance of the manifesto commitment to reducing class contact time, and we need to be mindful that delivering that will require more teachers in the system.

More broadly, I would query with local authorities the view that having fewer teachers in our schools would be good for our young people’s outcomes. I do not agree with that.

I do not detract from what has been said, because that sort of partnership working has undoubtedly been key to some of our work on closing the poverty-related attainment gap. However, the same is true of good-quality learning and teaching, and we really need to be mindful of not undermining the role of the teacher in closing that gap.

The previous cabinet secretary committed to protecting teacher numbers with an additional £145 million—and then last December’s teacher census showed that national teacher numbers had fallen. This December, the committee will be watching closely, as I will, to see what that additional £145 million of investment from the Government has delivered with regard to teacher numbers. I would be reluctant to move away from the current model, for reasons that might be obvious to the committee.

I am keen that we undertake work on that. I might bring Alison Taylor in on the point. We were discussing the issue recently.

Some evidence from elsewhere in the UK—from down south, actually—exists on the topic. It is helpful and shows that, if you invest in universality, it helps not only to close the gap but to raise attainment for all. I have personal experience of how stigmatising it can be for young people to access free school meals when they are in school. That is an important point in relation to universality for our primary school children, which I certainly support.

I will bring in Alison Taylor on how we intend to evaluate the policy, because the member raises an important point.

Could Mr Kerr explain what he means by “negative consequence”?