Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thanks, convener. I have been struck by that conversation on the student pathway, irrespective of a student’s age, but I am more interested, for the purpose of this question, in the pathway from school through the college process and into, potentially, higher education. We have heard that four in 10 young people from SIMD20 areas who are at university went there from college. That is a huge achievement for the college process. Is that figure up on previous years? Is it about right? What should that figure be?

More importantly, can you say a little bit more about the experience of young people from the most deprived backgrounds, however we define that, as they journey from school through the college process and, potentially, into higher education? I am conscious that a lot of community outreach programmes were disrupted during the Covid pandemic. Could we be storing up issues in the next couple of years in relation to those young people going through the college system?

I will be incredibly brief, because Audrey Cumberford may just have addressed this.

You said that there was a missed opportunity at the point of regionalisation, and there is undoubtedly a tough financial and budgetary outlook for the years ahead, but has regionalisation provided greater resilience and stability in the sector than there would have been had we not undergone it? You mentioned strong foundations. Is there a stability in those that would otherwise not have existed? We are evaluating the success or otherwise of the regionalisation process. Because of regionalisation, is there a foundation that provides greater resilience?

I think you addressed that in your previous reply.

That is always the way.

Good morning, everyone. To give some brief context to my question, there is consensus that, during Covid, great opportunities have been taken to improve equality, but every measure that is taken can inadvertently create some form of inequality. We have heard that remote participation is great unless a person’s device or broadband connection is not as good as someone else’s. Have there been any equalities issues that specifically relate to the change to online? Things can get better, but inequalities between different groups can still increase.

Do you want me to roll my second question together with this one, convener?

Rather than just putting on record what those inequalities might be, do the witnesses have any thoughts about how to address them? On broadband, for example, could the Parliament book a specific suite where there is good internet connectivity close to where the person lives, to ensure that there are no issues with connectivity or house space?

I have one final question, in case I do not come back in on this topic. As Artemis Pana and Bill Scott both mentioned, if someone has caring responsibilities or lives in a remote or rural area, it is great that they can contribute from home, but that should not cut them off from being able to come to Parliament. Might there be some inequalities in that regard? If we say to people, “Well, it’s difficult to get you to Parliament, so just go remote,” an inequality emerges. How can we address that sort of stuff?

I name-checked Artemis and Bill, so I should give them the opportunity to come in. Perhaps Bill can go first.

This is important, convener, and others on the committee are allowed to give a context to what they say.

The stability index shows that 78.9 per cent of staff in the sector are there at the start of the following year—they are retained for a year—and that is up by 2.5 per cent.

The reason why I put that on the record is that it is exactly the same as the level of retention across the wider social services sector, so it might be that there is an issue across that wider sector.

I am now going to ask a question, convener.

I want to look at the people who are in the sector, because recruitment and retention remain a challenge. They tend to be female and lower paid. We are not doing very well at attracting men into the sector, and that is an opportunity for recruitment and retention.

That was the context, convener. Would any of the witnesses like to pick up the cudgels? I know that, previously, there was a men in early years challenge fund of £50,000 to get men into the sector. What work is being done to achieve that and what success has there been? Clearly, if we are ignoring 48 per cent of the population for careers in early learning and childcare, we are letting down 100 per cent of the children. We need a diverse workforce—not just men, but black and minority ethnic individuals as well.

That all sounds great, but is there a disconnect between all of that and what happens locally on the ground? Is there a best-practice template that every local authority should use? There should, absolutely, be flexibility, but surely there are certain key things that every local authority should do in relation to the matter. We heard from witnesses that not every local authority is doing that, but they did not take up Mr Dey’s offer to name and shame or to put on the record the local authorities that have not stepped up to the plate. This is not about naming and shaming; it is about improving practice across the 32 local authorities and having an open, transparent and structured approach to engagement.

I ask Matthew Sweeney, then Adam Hall, to respond. I want to know how we can say, “Tick—that local authority is doing what we anticipated,” or, “That one has some work to do.” Unless we know what is happening on the ground, we will not drive up improvement. It is not about naming and shaming; it is about identifying who has to do a lot better.