Colleges (Funding Gap)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the reported funding gap facing Scotland’s colleges. (S6T-01955)
The Scottish Government budget for 2024-25 provides colleges with the same resources as are available in 2023-24. Given the extraordinary financial challenges that we are facing after years of austerity, I hope that Mr Kerr will recognise that as a demonstration of this Government’s commitment to our colleges.
The Scottish Government will again invest around £2 billion this year in our colleges and universities, enabling more than half a million people to access the learning opportunities that they need in order to fulfil their potential and deliver the skills that Scotland needs. That includes more than £750 million of investment in the college sector.
Cutting through that spin, I note that it was reported yesterday that, over the past three years, the total combined budget gap stands at nearly £500 million. Audit Scotland has warned that
“Risks to the college sector’s financial sustainability have increased”
in the past year, while the Scottish Funding Council has identified three colleges with “significant cash-flow issues”. How will the Government’s approach to funding and resourcing Scotland’s colleges change in response to the apparently existential threat that the current approach has created?
I accept that there is a gap, but I disagree with the figure that has been quoted. If the gross domestic product deflator is used rather than the consumer price index, as the Treasury would recommend, the number is lower. In addition, the baseline years that are used are not comparable, because they vary between academic and financial years.
I accept that there is a gap in terms of the premise that has been advanced. However, how could it be otherwise, given the financial challenges that this Government faces? If Mr Kerr or anyone else wants more money for colleges—he is perfectly entitled to suggest that that should be the case—it is incumbent on them to tell us from where in the education or wider Scottish Government budget they would take that money.
Well, of course, we did that, and, if the minister does not accept the figures, perhaps he can tell us in his next answer what he thinks the deficit is over the three years.
Colleges Scotland correctly describes colleges as being of
“critical importance to Scotland’s people, communities, and the economy”,
and as being crucial to delivering on the Scottish Government’s priorities. However, the Educational Institute of Scotland Further Education Lecturers Association says that colleges have not been
“given sufficient funding to do the job they are expected to do”,
and Colleges Scotland says that colleges
“cannot keep delivering more with less.”
If the Scottish Government will not make different choices and fund colleges properly, which of its purported priorities does it no longer require colleges to deliver?
This sounds like groundhog day, to be quite honest. Yet again, we have the Opposition coming to the chamber to ask for more funding. That is fine, but our budget has been decimated by Liam Kerr’s party’s decisions at Westminster. The cost of living crisis has been visited on us—all of us, our colleges included—by the Tories. That is relevant to the issue as well.
If Liam Kerr wants more money for colleges, where is it going to come from? Something would have to give. What are the Conservatives suggesting that we cut? To invest more in colleges, do they suggest that we should cut funding from schools or hospitals? That is the stark choice that everyone has to face.
We know one thing that the Tories, and at least some members in the Labour Party, are united in wanting to cut: free tuition. Students in Scotland will never forgive them for that.
There is a great deal of interest from members wishing to put supplementary questions, so I would be grateful if members could keep questions and responses concise.
The minister touched on the fact that, despite the shadow of 14 years of Westminster austerity, Scotland is still choosing to invest in its public sector. Will the minister provide further information about the action that the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that the college sector is built on fair work principles that support staff and students alike?
The fair work first criteria set out a range of fair work practices, including payment of the real living wage, no inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts, the offer of flexible and family-friendly working practices and investment in workforce development. Fair work is a term and condition of funding from the Scottish Government and the SFC and those funding conditions place an obligation on institutions to be exemplars of fair work. The Government expects the Scottish Funding Council to continue monitoring adherence to those conditions across the college sector.
In his resignation speech yesterday, the First Minister told us that
“it is often the most marginalised in our society who bear the brunt.”
Does the minister accept that that is exactly what is happening, and will happen, because of cuts to further education and to student places?
I accept that the funding settlement creates challenges for colleges; I do not accept the picture painted by Richard Leonard.
I say again to Richard Leonard what I said to Liam Kerr. He is perfectly entitled to advance the argument that we should spend more money on colleges, but, if he believes that, he has to tell us where that money will come from. I seem to recall that there was not a word from Labour during the budget process by way of a proposal to divide up the education budget in a different way.
Back in January, the Scottish Funding Council said that a number of colleges were in a dangerous financial position and had extreme cash flow difficulties. Is that still the case? Can the minister assure Parliament that no college will be allowed to close?
Mr Rennie makes a fair point. The SFC has flagged up concerns about a number of colleges, but I can assure Mr Rennie that the SFC is doing extensive work, on behalf of the Government, to engage with those colleges to ensure that they can move towards a sustainable footing. These are not easy times for colleges, which face significant, long-term and systemic challenges, but the SFC is extremely active in trying to ensure that colleges are helped towards a more secure future.
The minister will be aware that, during First Minister’s question time last Thursday, I asked about the lack of engineering apprenticeships to serve the engineering cluster around Prestwick airport. Would the £84 million that has been brought back into the Ayrshire growth deal now that the Mangata Networks project has failed help the minister to fund the places that have been cut from Ayrshire college?
I will pick up directly on Mr Whittle’s reasonable point. There is considerable demand for apprenticeships in engineering, which is one of the largest sectors that we support, and I am aware of the demand from the Prestwick cluster. However, the member will recognise the demand for engineering apprenticeships all over the country, which is driving the reform agenda for apprenticeships. We are looking at where there is the greatest need in the economy and at where there is the greatest demand and we are matching apprenticeships to those. That work is on-going, and I am happy to engage further with Mr Whittle on that subject.
In answering these questions, the Government is behaving as if it is not the Government. Colleges across Scotland have identified the same problems: chronic funding gaps, fewer students, a drop in student support and staff striking for fair pay. What is consistent is that that has all happened on this Government’s watch. The Government stepped in to ensure that public sector staff elsewhere secured appropriate pay uplifts to meet the cost of living, but it has not done that for college staff.
The Government seems to hold colleges in low regard. When will the minister end that slopey-shouldered approach and finally step in to support students and staff and to sort out the mess that he has left colleges in?
Once again, we see Labour behaving like a party that is not fit to be the Opposition, never mind the Government, although it aspires to be in government in Westminster before too long.
I reiterate to Pam Duncan-Glancy what I said to Richard Leonard and to Liam Kerr: members cannot come to this chamber and rattle off a list of demands—that does not happen for the college sector alone—without in any way identifying how they would be funded. That is reckless.
I apologise to those members whom I am unable to call under question 1. I must move on to question 2.
Private General Practice Clinics
To ask the Scottish Government for what reason the number of private GP clinics has reportedly tripled since the Covid-19 pandemic. (S6T-01957)
The pandemic was the biggest shock in the history of the national health service, and its effects are still felt. Activity in general practice returned to pre-pandemic levels once general practitioners could safely offer more appointments, but perceptions—I believe from my time as health secretary that they are false perceptions—persist that GP practices are unwilling to see patients. That perception endures.
General practice is fundamental to an NHS that is free at the point of need, and we invested £1.2 billion into general practice last year. We are working to better understand the increasing complexity of GP appointments and the nature of demand so that we can reform and support delivery of better services to patients.
Does the cabinet secretary accept that, by not adequately funding GP services, this Government has overseen the development of a two-tier health system whereby the worst off go without and even those on lower incomes are forced to pay for themselves or their loved ones to see a GP?
I do not. As I said in my answer to the original question, we are investing £1.2 billion into general practice. There is much complexity in what primary care in general and general practice in particular are facing, given the complexity of the needs of those who are presenting at their surgeries. The time that is required by GPs and multidisciplinary teams, which we are also investing in to add capacity, to treat those cases means that the pressure that is being felt in primary care, and in GP practices in particular, is still very high. That is why it is important that we continue to have discussions with GPs—as I do; I have met three GP practices over the past week—and hear from them what will make the difference in adding capacity, ensuring that people continue to get that service and preventing people from entering secondary care, including the acute system.
For patients, the complexity in the system lies in the difficulty that they face when they try to see a GP. Over the past decade, the number of GP practices in Scotland has fallen by almost 100 to 897, and the fall is represented all over Scotland. GP numbers dropped from 4,514 in 2022 to 4,474 last year. That is regressive, not progressive. Can the cabinet secretary give the public any assurance at all that that trend will reverse? What can they expect to see this Government deliver to increase the availability of GPs to our constituents?
We can already see that Scotland has a higher number of GPs per 100,000 of our population than anywhere else in the UK. We have 81 GPs per 100,000, excluding specialist trainees. In England, the figure is 62, in Wales it is 65, and in Northern Ireland it is 76. That underlines the fact that pressure exists across the UK in relation to recruitment and retention, which is why I am pleased that we have a record 1,200 GPs in training and why we are doing work on recruitment and retention—I could list that work, but I am happy to write to Carol Mochan about the various measures that we are taking. It is also why I am pleased that we continue to see general practice and primary care in general having such high levels of activity: some 90 per cent of NHS activity happens in the primary care sector, which is critical to ensuring that we continue to have a strongly functioning health service.
The reform discussions that I am taking forward are focusing on how we can continue to see that investment go into primary care, continue the prevention work that primary care does to avoid further longer-term ill health, and ensure that we take a population health approach to what we are endeavouring to do.
Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on the Scottish graduate entry medicine programme for recruitment and retention? Can he assure us that becoming a GP remains an accessible and attractive career choice across Scotland?
I am happy to underline the work that has been done through ScotGEM. We are looking to learn about how that investment is working, to ensure that GPs continue to arrive in rural communities.
GPs and practices are the foundation of community healthcare. That is true across Scotland but is particularly the case in rural and island communities. I am therefore encouraged by our recruitment pipeline. More than 1,200 GPs are now in Scotland’s training system. We recently led a working group on improving retention, working with partners, and will consider further supports across the career span, allocating more than £1 million a year on GP retention initiatives that are aimed at ensuring that becoming a GP remains an accessible and attractive career choice. That includes golden hellos, the GP retainer scheme, the GP coaching programme, the early-career First5 continuing professional development scheme, and our national wellbeing hub, as well as a range of fellowships.
I declare an interest as a practising NHS GP. We are not coping. GPs are struggling and primary care is on its knees. The cabinet secretary is right to say that 90 per cent of all patient contact occurs in primary care—which begs the question of why we are not adequately funding primary care. We are crying out for better funding. Does the cabinet secretary accept that the GP contract has failed to be implemented in its entirety and that it has disadvantaged rural GPs?
I would be more than happy to have a conversation with Sandesh Gulhane—as I have done previously and as I would do with any other colleague across the Parliament—about where we need to make improvements and where the reforms that are required for a sustainable and accessible health service can be achieved. Primary care is absolutely central to that. I would also be more than happy to hear about from where, within a financially constrained budget—not just for the health and social care portfolio but across the Government—Sandesh Gulhane would shift resource in order to have the investment that I would want to see going into primary care.
Of course, as I have said, the primary care practitioners—the GPs—I have met over recent weeks are talking about the pressures that they are under. That is driven partly by the complexity of the needs of their patients and the longer time that is needed for diagnosis and treatment. That is also why we need to take a population health approach, so that the people who present at primary care are healthier when they do so.
That concludes topical questions.
Air ais
Business Motion