Chamber and committees

So, convener—

Well, it is relevant to the regulations.

I know, but we are here to scrutinise the regulations. Another issue that I have experienced is that universities have been reluctant to accept students with temporary leave to remain but an uncertain future because they might not be able to guarantee that they can finish their course. That might be a thing of the past now, but is the minister aware of that as having been an issue previously? Should that be an issue?

Okay. Thank you.

I will be brief, convener. I thank the clerking team for producing the report and supporting our meetings over the past year.

I commend Emma Harper’s observation about the brevity of the report. That brevity means that the report talks in broad brush strokes but does not necessarily give the full details of what has been looked at. I know that we will come to those matters in our work programme at some point later in the year.

One aspect of the iterative nature of parliamentary reform that has been alluded to in the past is about making this place more family friendly. I am minded to put on the record again that there is still no appropriate childcare facility or crèche that would allow members to be here instead of having to work remotely or be elsewhere. That applies not just to members but to staff, who are just as important in supporting the Parliament. Maybe that is a bit of joint work for the future. I mention that merely because it will not be in our brief and concise annual report. However, we can expand on it a little more in a meeting, so I put that on the record and hope that we return to it.

If such an opportunity arose, we should be looking for those funds to be recurring and embedded into the colleges’ core settlement instead of our having the whole question whether the money is recurring, non-recurring, transitional or embedded in the core settlement. I know that there was confusion between the Scottish Funding Council and the college principals with regard to what, exactly, that money could be used for.

I do not want to just move on from the £26 million, minister. I get that it was for one year, but I thought that the on-going discussions were about getting some comfort and indication that the Government would be keen to see the money baselined into future settlements, with colleges changing their five-year plans accordingly. That has just not happened. My question, then, is this: will any Barnett consequentials that might appear for your portfolio be directed at colleges, given that they are the big losers from the reprofiling of moneys to fund the pay deals in schools?

In Glasgow? Would the money go to colleges in Glasgow—full stop—rather than to colleges in general?

And will those funds be recurring or will they be non-recurring funds?

Have you made the case to Government colleagues for moneys to be transferred from other portfolios into the education portfolio?