Seòmar agus comataidhean

In “Scotland’s colleges 2019”, you recommended that the SFC and the Scottish Government

“agree and publish a medium-term capital investment strategy that sets out sector-wide priorities”.

That is yet to be published. Are you confident that work on that strategy is on track? When can we expect to see a finalised plan?

Good morning, Mr Boyle. I will take up the convener’s point in relation to the improvement plan and the expectations that it places on colleges. After that, we can maybe look at forward capital expenditure plans and tie up a couple of loose ends in relation to estate maintenance.

First and foremost, your briefing highlights a number of actions that the Scottish Government and the SFC must take to provide clarity and support for the long-term improvement plan in the sector. In your view, at this stage, have the Scottish Government and the SFC provided enough guidance to ensure that colleges are fully aware of the expectations that are—and will be—placed on them?

It is obvious that prioritisation will be an issue, but it is evident that there is a significant shortfall in relation to backlog maintenance. There will also be the requirement to make sure that the estate meets net zero targets. Are you concerned that the capital funding shortfall—historically and in future—could undermine the delivery of education through the safety of the estate, and how concerned are you that the big capital expenditure that is required to meet the net zero target may not be achievable given the on-going tight framework that exists throughout the sector?

Are you certain of that?

Yes.

In relation to preferred bidder status, FMEL was a going concern from that point onwards and the contract award was almost seen as a done deal. Before you left on holiday, what was the status of that decision, and would you have approved that had you been in the office, rather than on leave?

You would concede, however, that there was some degree of political risk in proceeding.

CMAL expressed concerns to this committee about the razzmatazz and fanfare around the announcement of the preferred bidder status. Obviously, it thought at that point that that almost locked in the deal and that it would bind its hands in future negotiations. Did Transport Scotland advise Scottish ministers to perhaps consider a more discreet way to achieve the milestone of preferred bidder status?

Good morning, Mr Middleton. I want to look deeper into the issue of the builders refund guarantee and Jim McColl’s account of the discussions that he undertook with—he said—the Scottish Government and CMAL in developing a bid, in which, he says, you knew that they were not in a position to offer a builders refund guarantee. That is documented in an exchange of letters between Stuart McMillan and Derek Mackay in February 2015, in which it is intimated that it would be possible to proceed without a full builders refund guarantee. What was your awareness of that correspondence?

The letter of February 2015 has not been formally released to the committee, but it has been quoted in the press. Among the reports of that, Mr Mackay gives reassurance to Mr McMillan that it would be possible to proceed without a builders refund guarantee. Mr Mackay says that CMAL had, on occasion, “taken different approaches”. Are you aware of any “different approaches” in relation to that fundamental issue of a builders refund guarantee regarding any prior procurements?