Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Earlier, you flagged up some issues with regard to reporting in independent schools, and I just want to clarify the Government’s position on that.

There are three overlapping issues here, I think. First, if we are going to go forward with this, we will not want some two-tier system in which independent schools are not held to the same standard as state schools. However, the fact is that independent schools, in general, do not have a direct relationship with the local authority in which they are situated. Moreover, the local authority in which the school is situated might differ from the local authority that has placed a child in the school’s care, particularly if we are talking about an independent special school. It does not even have to be a special school; many of the pupils who attend private schools in Glasgow and Edinburgh come from surrounding local authority areas.

In its initial memorandum on the bill, the Government flagged up a couple of these issues as being worthy of consideration and scrutiny, but I am not entirely clear what the Government’s position is on them. Can you clarify it? Is it your position that the bill would have to be amended to resolve some of these issues, particularly the potential for dual reporting?

My other line of questioning is a bit different, but it goes back to the point that you have touched on a few times about industrial relations and the position of the trade unions. It is fair to say that, at the moment, the general area of focus for teachers’ unions is not pay, but conditions, workload issues and so on. Do you envisage the bill having any impact, adverse or positive, on industrial relations and the atmosphere in the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers?

I take on board your point that the unions have made their position pretty clear. In the discussions that you have had with them—and I accept that there will be a degree of confidentiality, up to a point—have any of the unions raised the prospect of the legislation becoming an issue in an SNCT setting or in a formal industrial relations context, instead of just being one of the many wider policy discussions that you have with them and which sit outside SNCT?

That last point concerns exactly the question that I was about to ask. Other committee members are certainly considering whether the Dundee situation has raised issues that we could resolve by amending the bill in relation to the SFC’s functions. From the Government’s perspective, and from your experience of engaging with the process, have you found limitations in the role of the SFC? Have you wanted the SFC to do things and discovered that legislation as it currently stands makes that impossible? Have you identified potential amendments to the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill in relation to the role and functions of the SFC that the Government could lodge at stage 2?

I appreciate that. Your answer is useful, though.

The medium-term financial strategy sets out that one of the Government’s key objectives is to maximise the value of current spend. Although I recognise the importance of the autonomy of universities, it is worth the Government looking at particular areas—rather than, say, set conditions for everything that you can possibly think of across the board—to ensure that the hundreds of millions of pounds that are going out the door are aligned with the Government’s wider objectives. For example, it is worth looking at the fair work conditionality, which aligns with objectives on eradicating child poverty.

It is also worth looking at how existing conditions are being enforced, because some fair work conditions are already attached. The SFC’s main mechanism for enforcement is clawback, but, in practice, we will all agree that it is very rare for a situation to be improved by clawing money back, particularly given the crisis that most institutions—both universities and colleges—are in.

Do you think that the clawback power is a useful stick to wield, or is there a need for the SFC to have other options available to ensure that universities and colleges are meeting the conditions attached to the money that is provided to them, without the prospect of taking money away and making situations worse, with people perhaps losing their jobs?

I am grateful for that, minister. I realise that I have asked quite a lot of specific questions, and you are only eight days into the job.

I apologise for not being able to join the meeting from the start. Before I move on, though, I will add my tuppence-worth on the financial memorandum.

As the convener has said, I raised the issue of £4 million for information technology during the debate as a good example of why there is so much scepticism about the memorandum. Many of us have been left with the impression that it is being used in a battle between the Government and Skills Development Scotland that we are all aware of but which we cannot really see. Costs are being reduced in some areas and increased in others, because of a tension that is not really about the finances. I cannot believe that it can cost £4 million to move responsibilities from one part of the public sector to another, given that there is no need to create new systems. The figure seemed awfully convenient when the Government had successfully managed to get SDS to reduce costs elsewhere.

That is where my scepticism comes from, minister. However, I recognise that you now have a lot of work to do to get into the detail of that, and I encourage you to do so.

My questions are on quite a different area. I want to begin by trying to get a high-level understanding of where you are coming from on the issue of public funding for colleges and universities.

It is understandable that universities, in particular, come regularly to Parliament and say that the funding that they get for the tuition of Scotland-domiciled students does not cover their costs. That is totally legitimate. They say that there is a need for far more public funding and that they are a key economic driver. We agree with all of that, but, at the same time, our public finances are under huge pressure and it is difficult to see institutions that are, in a handful of cases, very wealthy coming and asking for more public money.

Does the Government sets strict enough conditions for the funding that it provides, particularly to universities? I know that colleges are public bodies—and I might come to them in a moment—but universities often chafe against the suggestion that the money that they get should come with conditions, perhaps on fair work or net zero, and they will argue that they are independent and that Government should not be dictating how they should be run. Given that they are using hundreds of millions of pounds, do you think that the conditions that are currently attached to that funding are providing enough value for money? Is there scope to go further, or would you go in the opposite direction and reduce conditions to, as some principals would call it, unleash creativity in the sector?

Indeed, and despite other concerns that I have about it, that was one of the reasons for my group voting for it at stage 1. It is an issue that needs to be explored further.

Finally, in the same broad space, colleges are public bodies, so they are not in the same situation as universities; for a range of reasons, including not compromising their charitable status, universities cannot have everything dictated by Government. Colleges are not in that position; as I have said, they are public bodies.

However, they are not covered by public sector pay policy. Apart from Scottish Water, which is a publicly owned company and a bit different, college principals are the only leaders of public sector organisations who are not covered by the chief executive pay framework. If colleges are public bodies, should they not be more aligned with the rest of the public sector, particularly when it comes to issues such as pay policy?

What action was taken in response to it?