Seòmar agus comataidhean

You alluded to that earlier, and I know that we have danced around the issue.

This is my last question. I appreciate that Mary Senior and Ellie Gomersall might want to come in on my previous question as well. Our discussions today have been nearside with regard to what is happening in the UK and the differences in Scotland, but the issue of how to fund higher education is not unique to here. Many other countries have wrestled with issues such as how to incentivise international students and retain domestic students while maintaining fairness, parity and so on. To what extent is this discussion being forced over the longer term by the UK Government’s decision to introduce a fees system that is different from the Scottish Government’s system? As Ellie Gomersall pointed out, we have arrived at a certain position in Scotland.

I know that we might not want to start from where we currently are. Nonetheless, if we were looking internationally at other funding models, which ones might we consider? The UK—or, rather, England, with its tuition fees—is anomalous relative to what other countries do. In a multitude of other countries, for example, international students can study free of charge.

I am interested in hearing from Dr Conlon, in particular, because of your background. If we were not starting from here, what might we be able to do? I am quite concerned that we are looking just at the recent history and development.

I have asked Dr Conlon to comment, but I appreciate that the others will want to come in. I will bring you in, too.

I appreciate that this has already been quite a wide-ranging discussion, but I want to offer Ellie Gomersall and Mary Senior the chance to come in, too. Ellie Gomersall, you might have some reflections on the international aspect, due to your role.

That is helpful. I will play that back, so that I am clear on that. Then I will bring in Mark MacPherson.

I think that we are using the two terms differently. You are pointing out a straight alignment, potentially with local businesses, in which course provision is predicated on what they might assess as their needs at that time. I am making a wider point about—this is where I want clarification—how being fleet of foot in course provision can bring economic benefit. Take net zero and some of the skills that we might need for that. Businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, might not have necessarily understood yet what they need, but we might know that at an academic level. Are you making that distinction? Do you understand the economic benefit?

I ask David Belsey to reflect on that and on the wider impact of the cuts. What is your thinking, from an infrastructure perspective, on how we can get to a sustainable college estate, bearing in mind the cuts that I have set out?

I think that we could all agree with that. Obviously, things might change after the general election and any new incoming Government might move away from the 20 per cent real-terms cut to capital investment. However, either way, given the chronic issue with UK public finances, which applies across the board, I would appreciate your thoughts on infrastructure investment planning that is built into a sustainable college estate. What are some of the key areas that it would be important to plan out? What would you draw out from your perspective, accepting and understanding the difficulties?

There is a lovely parallel between risks and opportunity there. Mary Senior, I offer you the chance to have the last comment.

That leads on to my next question. You have set out clearly some of the risks and their significance. Given the risks that you have highlighted, what can we do to start to rebalance the position? Obviously, that needs to be staged over a period of time.

What you just said does not in any way reflect the fact that there is a projected 20 per cent real-terms cut in the capital budget. To be clear, the capital budget is given to the Scottish Government by the UK Government, and the Scottish Government has only a very limited capacity—an extremely limited capacity—to increase that budget, so it cannot allocate more money to college infrastructure than is available. In the light of that situation, what are your reflections? The Scottish Government cannot take money from revenue—from day-to-day expenditure—and put it into capital. That is illegal; it is not allowed to do that.

The Scottish Government can spend only what it is given so, when there are significant cuts, there is nowhere else for it to go and priority calls need to be made. As I pointed out, Audit Scotland has shown that, over the most recent two years, the Scottish Government has provided an increase in capital expenditure. I am trying to understand whether, in this very real situation, there are any silver bullets in order to deliver a sustainable college estate. It is not as simple as pushing out plans—I think that that is what Mark MacPherson was alluding to. We will have to do less, because we have less.

I am trying to understand what social considerations colleges should make. I think that, in your earlier remarks, you highlighted that colleges should consider their contribution to society when they are considering course provision.

This is the moment you have all been waiting for.

We have danced around the issue of international students—the implications for fees and the fee structure, risks to universities and so on. I will come to you first, Dr Conlon, for your honest assessment of where we are in terms of our reliance on international students, the implications of that reliance and the risks therein should there be some major international shift—fully accepting the comments that Mary Senior made earlier about the drop caused by the Home Secretary’s recent announcement.

That is the starting point. I have some follow-on questions as well.