Chamber and committees

The question will be short. It is specifically for Karen Watt and is about something in the SFC report about the research council funding share and whether we should consider whether we are positioned appropriately to win new types of funding from the UKRI. How can we be better positioned?

I want to touch on finances. To what extent has the colleges’ longer-term financial planning improved in recent years, and what has been the impact of that?

Thank you.

Do the other two witnesses want to add anything to that? I want to come back in, but first I want to give you that opportunity.

Audit Scotland acknowledged that the pressures have been exacerbated by inflation, rising costs and so on, so I am glad that that has been mentioned.

Many years ago, prior to regionalisation—was it in 2014?—the Office for National Statistics announced that colleges throughout the United Kingdom were to be considered to be public bodies, which meant that they would get central Government funding. I am aware that you cannot build up reserves, but I have read that there is scope for setting up arm’s-length organisations in order that you could generate funding. I am interested to hear a little bit more about that, and maybe to hear of an example of where that has happened.

I went for the subject of college finances with the previous panel, but a lot of that has been covered.

My observation, which you will not be surprised to hear, is that I have some sympathy with your position. You are having to work within a finite budget that is being impacted by the cost of living and inflation, and you cannot borrow; I know that that is a tricky situation to be in.

Hugh Hall talked about the Office for National Statistics, which has reclassified colleges as public bodies. I assume that being public bodies increases accountability for colleges. I am looking for solutions as we move forward. If you were to vary the business and funding model, how would you balance the need for accountability with enabling colleges to have a little bit of extra space to self-fund?

I want to ask quickly about the impact of multiyear funding. Would Joanna Campbell like to come in on that?

The classification applies across the whole of the UK, not just in Scotland. Is that not the case?

I will move things forward a wee bit and look at outcomes. I will start off with a positive point. On results day, an open letter from a range of Scotland’s employer representative groups and others was published. They said:

“We want to reassure you that we recognise and value your qualifications as much as any other year and that the skills you have developed, and will continue to develop, will play a crucial role in ensuring a bright future for businesses in Scotland and our economy.”

I am sure that our youngsters were very heartened to hear that.

However, we are acutely aware of the changing needs of the employment sector—I am talking about not just business but social care and the public sector. We know that there is changing need and that some jobs do not yet exist, which is a challenge with regard to the skills, knowledge, attitudes and behaviours that are required. How does the SQA work with employers and further and higher education providers to ensure that the qualifications support candidates—our young people—to the next stage of their learning journey?

Is the SQA flexible enough? I am interested in the future. Obviously, skills and demands are changing, and I hear from employers that crafting a new diet will also require assessment at a robust level that is recognised. Is the SQA flexible and robust enough to be able to respond to that need?

What about the timescales? We know that there are skills shortages. It would be good to know how long it can take to develop a qualification and assess it before people start coming through.