Chamber and committees

I agree with the member—there is no additionality in my budget for the support that might be needed in that respect. I would say to the college sector that I am keen to work with it—very much so. I heard that the committee took evidence from Colleges Scotland in which Shona Struthers talked about duplication in the system. I have discussed that point at length with Mr Dey, given our responsibilities in relation to qualification delivery and the levels of duplication that may currently exist in the system.

It is important to say that we have done our best to protect spend across the portfolio, and I am particularly mindful of colleges’ issues of financial sustainability at the current time. I suppose that a precariousness has built up as a challenge in the sector over a number of years. Indeed, since I have been an MSP—certainly since 2016—there has been industrial action in the sector every year, perhaps bar one. That has proved detrimental and challenging in trying to change the narrative about the importance of colleges, and we really need to start celebrating the importance of our college sector.

I am not going to pretend to the member that I have any additionality to provide other than that which is provided for in the budget, but I can commit to working with the sector on areas where we can support it. That might involve looking at working differently in the reform space—indeed, I heard some quite helpful suggestions for that from committee members—but I cannot pretend to the member that I have any additionality to support some of that work. It is not in my budget. I should also point out that we have not yet reached stage 1 of the budget process, so, if the member has any suggestions from where in my budget or from which other portfolio that money could come, I am happy to hear them.

That is the reality that I am currently working in, and I will not pretend that there is additionality in my budget if it does not exist.

I saw some of the coverage of the finance secretary’s appearance yesterday, and I have seen the press coverage, too. It is my understanding—though I am prepared to be corrected on this by my officials, with whom I have discussed this at length—that these are the additional places that we built into the system during the pandemic to protect students and support them through their learning.

We should remember that, during the pandemic, higher numbers of young people went on to higher education largely as a result of changes to the qualifications and examinations at the time. I heard Alastair Sim say that on the radio this morning. We expected higher numbers to flow into our university system, which is why we built in the additional numbers. In the period since the pandemic, we have progressively withdrawn those places, and this represents, I think, the final removal of the additional places that were built in prior to my time in office. It removes the uplift in funding for more than 1,200 places that were added during Covid.

I think that the member asked specifically about places for Scottish students. The latest official statistics show that, in 2021-22, record numbers of Scottish students started full-time first degrees at Scottish universities, which I know has been welcomed by Universities Scotland. I do not think that there is evidence at the current time that we do not have enough places for Scottish students at institutions or that Scottish students might be choosing to study elsewhere, but I am keen to keep a very close eye on that.

I go back to my initial response that these places are additional ones that were built in during the pandemic. The committee understands well enough the challenges that all portfolios are facing. To me, this was a decision that I had to take to protect outcomes for our young people, given the challenges that I am facing elsewhere in the portfolio. As I have said, it is additionality that we built in during the pandemic.

I am not sure that I would characterise university funding in those terms. I have seen evidence from, I think, Universities Scotland, requesting that the funding for those additional places be removed and given to the sector to help it to respond to some of the points that the member makes. In an ideal world, I would be saying exactly those things, but the reality is that I must balance my budget and identify where savings can be taken from.

The member asked about socioeconomically deprived areas. Our work on widening access continues, and we will work with the sector to make progress on that.

However, I go back to my original point, which is that those were additional places that were built into the system during the pandemic, so I am not sure that I would characterise the removal or cutting of those places as swingeing. We are simply moving back to where we were prior to the pandemic.

The member also asked about the further removal of places. We are not in a position to give the member detailed information about that at this stage in the budget cycle, because the SFC must work with institutions. It is for ministers to provide the SFC with guidance on our expectations about which places should be protected. I want to work closely with the SFC on that very point.

On the member’s point about socioeconomic disadvantage, we want to protect places for our most disadvantaged young people. That is the point of our widening access policy.

I am not sure that we can quantify that impact at this stage in the budget process, but I am happy to provide the member with written detail about that.

I explained in my previous response that we will work with the SFC on those allocations—they go through that robust process every financial year; it is not something that is new to the portfolio—and we will work with the institutions on what they will mean for them.

More broadly, the socioeconomic impact that the member asked about will be quantified in due course. We do not have that clarity or detail from the SFC at this stage in the budget settlement, because the SFC has to work with ministers to look at the allocation and what that might mean.

I cannot give the member more detail at this time about where we are with the chronology of the budget, but I will be happy to write to him, or perhaps to the committee, with more detail about that as we progress through the budget process. We are not yet at stage 1 of the budget, so, if the member has any suggestions about where else finance could be deployed or where else we could meet requests from the university sector, I would be happy to hear where that money might come from.

I do not agree with the member’s assertion. The Deputy First Minister published details of the in-year savings that were made back in November. We spoke to some of those savings at the start of the meeting. The member is well versed, for example, in the removal of the transformation fund, which was in the region of £46 million, at the start of this financial year. However, additional savings had to be made during the year to balance the budget.

More broadly, the member cites specific examples of course reductions that I do not yet have in front of me. Of course, during the budget process, the SFC has to carry out robust consideration of the number of places that are available. I do not yet have that data in front of me, so those calculations have not crossed my desk. However, if the member is happy to share her working with me, I am more than happy to hear it.

The SFC has to make those savings in a way that minimises the impact on learning and teaching. I have been clear about that. On the member’s supplementary question about disadvantage, we need to ensure that there is support for students, particularly from disadvantaged areas. The SFC is doing some of the work on removing the strategic transformation fund that I mentioned. It has also taken savings from a range of demand-led and other budgets. Some of that has involved underspend—as I intimated in my response to the convener, I am happy to share the detail of that with the committee—and the European social funds income.

The savings that were made during this financial year are baked into the allocation for next financial year. A lot of what we are talking about is not new but is already in the public domain. The DFM spoke to that back in November. The SFC now has to look at the return of savings and to provide me with advice about the allocations going forward. We have not gone through that robust analysis yet. That would not usually happen at this point in the financial year. However, we know that the 1,200 spaces that the member spoke to, which I have accounted for in responses to her and other members, relate to additionality being baked into the system during the pandemic.

I would not expect us to have that figure at this time in the year, because it must be forecast for next year. We need to have a degree of accuracy in responding to the member’s point about media reports, but I cannot imagine that the media reports have the accurate update. I often hear figures quoted in the media that are not necessarily accurate. Once we have an accurate picture from the SFC about that provision, I will be happy to provide that detail to the committee. We are at quite an early stage in the budget process, and some of that will be worked through in the iterations of the budget.

On the member’s first point about places—I have covered this now with a number of members—the impact on spaces relates to the 1,200 spaces that we added during the pandemic. The member has now quoted additional figures, but I am not sure of the evidence base for those.

I think that the member is misconstruing some of the data that we have already published about the savings that were made in-year. The allocation that universities will receive is broadly similar to what they received during this financial year.

Of itself, at the current time?

Oh, mon ami—okay.

At the end of last year, there were a number of different reports about the provision of language courses at the University of Aberdeen. I also met the principal to discuss that very subject towards the end of last year—I should say that it is a matter for the university, which is independent of Government—and I understand that the issue is one of footfall: the university does not have the numbers to drive the availability of courses.

Nevertheless, I accept that there is a challenge around languages. I have asked to engage with Education Scotland on the point, and I met officials last week to look again at our languages policy and how we are supporting it. We have done a lot of work in our primary schools on the one-plus-two model to support the delivery of language learning, with our young people learning two languages, and I think that we could look to support more in that space.

Liam Kerr’s substantive point goes back to Ruth Maguire’s point about whether we should prescribe in the curriculum that language learning should happen until the end of S4. That is not in our current curriculum. If that is a view that Mr Kerr would like to explore with me when it comes to qualifications reform, I will be happy to hear it.

Both Liam Kerr and I have a qualification in languages. I have found mine very helpful in conversing with Mairi Gougeon’s husband, who is from France. However, in seriousness, having a second language is helpful, including with a person’s development. A friend of mine who is a former German teacher spoke to me recently about the joy of learning languages.

We need to be mindful of some changes to curriculum for excellence. Going back to Mr Rennie’s question about what is wrong with Scottish education, we need to consider the link between the BGE and the senior phase but also the role of subjects. In secondary schools, subject specialists with degrees and teaching qualifications to deliver them need to be part of the solution. We need to be mindful of changes to CFE that might drive changes in the uptake of courses, whereby we will have less language learning than we had in the past.

When Liam Kerr and I were at school—although, obviously, he is older than I am—we had to study a language until the end of S4. Probably all of us in this room—maybe not Ross Greer—have an S4 qualification in a language, but the generations who followed us may not, because they were not compelled to learn a language by their curriculum, which was flexible.

The counter-argument to that is that we should prescribe. Such a curriculum would be very different from the one that we currently have. However, if the committee holds that view, I am happy to hear it. Obviously, we will have a wider debate about qualifications in the next few weeks.