Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have listened to the session with great interest, and there is no denying the power of your advocacy for disabled people. In general terms, I am hearing a lot of arguments to which I would take a slightly counter view, similar to what I said about EqIAs. In all the various forms of government, there are issues with processes not being undertaken because they are time consuming, expensive and often difficult, particularly where there are competing rights. We have seen that before, and it has proven quite difficult.

To what extent have you considered that although you are operating with the best intent, in reality, you are desperately seeking to plug a gap that is there? If that is the case, why cannot we—all of us in the Parliament—plug that gap without a commissioner?

Again, I hear a very powerful argument and advocacy for that. From my perspective as a woman—I am just playing devil’s advocate—I point out that women have been disproportionately discriminated against for thousands of years. With each gain that we make, it feels as though we slip back—if you look at the pay differentials, for example. Even women’s rights has been a matter of discussion and dispute in the past few years. Should I not therefore be thundering out and making an argument for a women’s commissioner? I am saying that about women, and there are a multitude of other groups, so you would end up with a Parliament that is run by commissioners rather than by the democratically elected people.

I have a brief top-up comment that follows on from my colleague Ben Macpherson’s fair point about the process of allocation. It might well be worth exploring that issue further, but I would be very surprised if it were otherwise. If the Scottish Government were mandated to flow the consequentials through in exactly the same format, that is exactly what it would have to do; after all, it would be a legal requirement. However, given that this is the education committee, there might well be a misunderstanding about how the financials flow through, the process itself and the point at which money arrives with the Scottish Government. It might be worth exploring that.

That point about gearing and lending to English universities is very well made, and I understand it clearly. Is part of the risk for them that, if they have taken on lending against fixed assets on a commercial basis, the lending institutions could pull in loans, as we have seen in other areas? I take it that that is what you are alluding to—as well as the cash-flow issue, there is the cash-out day idea.

I will move on to my next question. We have talked a lot about finances, and I hear and understand your warnings about the provision in the light of that situation. In both your sectors, what additional support—from both the Scottish Government and the Funding Council—would you ideally like to have at this time? I know that everybody will say, “Well, we want more money.” However, if we imagine that that is not possible given the prevailing fiscal climate, what additional support would you ideally like to have?

I note with interest that, with that framing around flexibility, transparency and predictability, you are talking in business terms, because that is exactly what businesses would look for.

Shona, do you concur with that in relation to the college sector? As ever with these things, we have arrived at a place without looking back, and people will say, “We would not necessarily have chosen to start from here.” Is that a useful framing for you? I would appreciate your insights.

As public sector institutions.

You have been very clear, thank you. I have one last wee question to finish off this section. We have heard a lot of chat in recent months about possibly encouraging Scotland to move to a fee model for universities, similar to what applies elsewhere. However, purely from a business perspective, I was staggered when I went away this morning and looked at the perilous state of some English universities—despite the fee model—because of the gearing ratios. The situation does not seem quite as simple when we start to look at the financial provisioning of education.

How actively are you having conversations with the Government to almost look afresh at how we all get a bit of something that we want, such as flexibility? I appreciate that you have mentioned multiyear funding, which is, rightly, a common refrain. How active are the discussions, not just in your tripartite group? Is there the same sense of urgency?

Good morning and thank you for joining us. I hear what you are saying very clearly, Professor Gillespie. The probability of that risk occurring—that is, an institution failing due to cash-flow shortages or some other financial issue—is low. I am just putting that on the record. Is that correct?

I am sorry to interrupt but, in that case, how could you be clear in your earlier statement to Willie Rennie, when you said that you did not think that that was likely? I am sorry, but I forget the exact words that you used.