Chamber and committees

The first point is a fairly fundamental one that I have to respond to. I am not suggesting that these matters have not been discussed in the round with Universities Scotland; of course, they have been. I was referring to the very specific point that was made in the letter that you have quoted. I am more than willing to pick up on that point with Universities Scotland.

On Mr Kerr’s specific point about that particular market and that particular cohort of students, I guess that that would be reflected in the answer that I have already given, in terms of how we work with the sector to enable it to be resilient to any particular shock that may come. However, let us not talk up the prospect of a shock in the first instance; rather, let us ensure that the sector can be resilient to that possibility.

On the latter point, about Confucius institutes, I have no direct control or say in the relationship that any individual institution might have with such organisations—that is for the universities to account for. What I can say is that the Higher Education Governance (Scotland) Act 2016 is very clear about what should be undertaken in relation to academic freedoms in our institutions, and I expect that to be taken very seriously.

On your first point, I was not suggesting that there has been no impact. If I picked up Mr Marra’s point correctly, I was referring to the fact that there are particular markets and that a number of students are attracted to Scotland. That has not been substantially disrupted by the events of this year.

Clearly, in common with every sector—which adds to the budget pressures that we face—there has been an impact resulting from the wider geopolitical situation that we have seen this year.

Mr Kerr made a point on behalf of Universities Scotland. I am more than willing to get into that with Universities Scotland and to look at the detail. We have not done that so far, and Universities Scotland has not come to me to say how that might manifest itself. I would be interested in understanding how it would negatively impact the educational experience. I have certainly not perceived that having international students come to Scotland has had any particularly negative impact.

If there is an issue with potential impacts on the sector caused by other international events, I go back to the answer that I just gave Mr Marra, which is that we need to take account of that in the international education strategy that we have committed to taking forward.

First, I should say that Mr Doris and I did not plan that question—I was not teeing it up for him; it is a mere coincidence.

The arrangements to which Mr Doris refers are of fairly long standing and reflect the fact that provision in different environments does not necessarily look precisely the same. Some of the overheads in Scotland’s universities might not be reflected in the same way in some of Scotland’s colleges. For example, a greater range of lecturers and tutors might be involved in the experience of a university student relative to that of a college student. We see some of the same interactions in terms of funding per head for school pupils as well. The situation is driven by a lot of those factors.

There is a legitimate question with regard to whether we have got the balance right, and we will always be willing to consider these things. However, that is the background to what effectively drives those differences.

To a large extent, they have been achieved. There has been a reduction in the duplication of course provision; that delivers efficiencies and benefits of scale, which, in turn, positively impact on front-line delivery for students. Since regionalisation, there has been greater agility, flexibility and responsiveness in the college sector to the needs of its learners, employers and the wider communities that it serves.

There has not only been a reduction in the duplication of course provision; it has also been done on a basis that maintains core provision across geographical areas. An enormously important part of the equation is that we have greater clarity on learner pathways and better collaboration and joined-up activity between our academic institutions—for example, between colleges and universities. We also have greater levels of provision of senior-phase school learning in the college environment.

Those positive developments were reflected in some of the evidence that you heard from principals about the pathways that have been created. They articulated that those pathways were probably not possible in years gone by.

I would like the rates to improve—I certainly agree with that proposition. In the past couple of years, we have seen inevitable disruption as a consequence of Covid-19, but we are seeing recovery from that, which is welcome. However, I would, of course, like higher completion rates. I suggest that we still see very positive outcomes in terms of post-study destinations, which is welcome. We want higher completion rates, and I am committed to working with the sector on improving the rates.

Where any good practice exists, both management and unions should recognise it, because they will be involved in the process. I am all for good practice being drawn on to inform the wider process. Again, where there is a role for it and where we are aware of an example, I will not hesitate to point to it as a good, positive example for the wider consideration of the whole sector.

I beg your pardon, Ms Callaghan, but I missed the start of your question.

I think that the role that I have talked about is, in and of itself, a manner of responding to the lessons learned exercise. With respect, the lessons learned exercise should be lessons that each party involved has to learn, reflect on, and respond and adjust to. With the greatest will in the world, I cannot compel other parties to act in a particular fashion. We will look at the exercise and reflect on what we might need to do, but it is for the other parties to do that as well.

I will continue to engage with the unions and management on a bilateral basis. There have also been some forums where unions and management were in the same room along with the Scottish Government, although I readily concede that they are not specifically on this subject matter. However, that has not been with me, and I want to be very clear on this: I am not looking for the Scottish Government to become a direct party to pay negotiations. We set the structure, and I saw that the union perspective is that the structure is right. Our role is to make sure that the parties involved in the negotiation can get round the table and enjoy the benefits of the structures that have been established to try to resolve any differences between them.

Yes, there will be. I am sorry if I was not being clear. I was not saying that the primary responses are just those from unions and management; we are also part of the wider process of engagement and of the process of assessment of the lessons learned exercise. I am not seeking to distance us from that at all. We are party to the consideration of the report, and, yes, we will respond to it in fuller detail.

I think that it will be in fairly short order, but I am also keen that other colleagues have the chance to reflect on it.