Chamber and committees

That is really helpful. My next question is for both of you on support for articulation for students and whether the Government and the SFC are giving you the right support to ensure that articulation works the way that it should.

I want to explore the theme of widening access a little more. My first question is about the post-1992 universities, which have a particular reputation in respect of widening access. What could the impact be of the reduction in the funding of those universities on widening access?

That is no problem at all, convener—the double barrel is annoying.

Thank you very much for the answers that you have given so far. I want to ask a bit more about some of the allocations. As a starter, I will ask about the allocations to the post-1992 universities. The committee has heard concern about the fact that the cuts have, arguably, fallen disproportionately on those universities, which have quite a history of widening access. A moment ago, you said that widening access is one of the things that you were asked to protect. You have cut the student support budget and you have significantly cut the number of funded places for those institutions. How did you consider the impact on those institutions?

I absolutely will. Can I ask the panel, and particularly Professor Gillespie, what can be done to help institutions that are impacted by the removal of the Scottish Funding Council’s funding towards the increased cost of employer pension contributions?

I will be brief.

The Scottish Funding Council said in its report that there is a risk that 21 per cent of full-time-equivalent staff could be lost in the college sector as a result of the budget and the finances. Will Shona Struthers comment briefly on what the impact of that would be on the sector?

When the University and College Union gave evidence to us last week, it noted that, because the United Kingdom Government was paying for the 5 per cent increase in employers’ contributions to the teachers pension scheme in England, additional money was likely to come to the Scottish Government through Barnett consequentials. I understand that the equivalent increase in employers’ costs in Scotland is around 3 per cent. Would it be possible for the committee to ask the Scottish Government to confirm whether it intends to pass the consequentials to the Scottish Funding Council for the scheme, and whether it will do so at 3 or 5 per cent?

Have any of the post-1992 universities given an explanation? The SFC said that the reduction was a result of the universities not filling all their places. Have any of those universities explained why that might have been the case?

I appreciate that. I ask the same question of Professor Gillespie. [Interruption.]

Okay. I am not sure that that is what those organisations have said in the representations that they have made to us. In its submission, Universities Scotland said:

“The SQA places have been removed from the system in a different pattern to the way they were allocated in 2020 and 2021, meaning that some institutions”—

the post-1992 institutions—

“were more negatively impacted than others.”

What is your response to that?

I found that exchange really helpful—thank you. Some of my questions have already been answered, so I will put just one question. What are your expectations of colleges with regard to voluntary severance?