Seòmar agus comataidhean

No—because the Scottish Funding Council has not completed its discussions with the sector.

I take the point that universities that rely more on the teaching grant, particularly the smaller universities, are in a different financial position from larger universities that are sitting with large reserves, which we were talking about earlier. Their differing positions will be taken into account in future discussions.

As I said to the convener earlier, the easy thing is to point to areas of the budget where there are challenges with falling resources; the more difficult thing is to put forward a proposition on what different decisions would be made. I would be happy to hear them.

Since 2018, devolved employability services have reached more than 100,000 people. They continue to do some very important work. There is a move towards a system that will be easier for users to navigate and that is more focused. Local employability partnerships are being given responsibility to deliver services in their areas that meet the needs of their users and local labour markets. That is where the focus of employability services will be.

There is no doubt, however, that where employability funding has been reduced, whether it is through the in-year savings this year or last year, that has been an unfortunate consequence of the pressure on Scottish Government budgets. Had we made decisions elsewhere and not in employability, I am sure that those issues would be raised with me today.

With regard to the position of business, I know that on non-domestic rates, for example, businesses in the relevant sectors would have preferred the Scottish Government to have passed on the NDR business tax cuts. Had we done that, however, there would have been substantially less funding for the NHS and for public services.

Ultimately, these matters come down to the choices that we have had to make. Those choices have been difficult, but I could not, in all conscience, cut business taxes at the expense of investment in the NHS.

When we sit with the choices in front of us and we have to balance a budget, and make decisions between business tax cuts or NHS funding, I have been clear that there is only ever going to be one answer to the question, and it has to be prioritising investment in the NHS over business tax cuts—at this time, anyway.

Give me a second.

Essentially, the SFC will be discussing the matter with the sector. It is fair to say that it is expected that the funds that will be available to colleges at the start of 2024-25 will be very similar to the funds that were invested by colleges in 2023-24. A number of in-year savings were made in demand-led areas of spend, where the figures were lower than had been anticipated. We anticipate that the allocations will be very similar to the core funding that colleges received—and have been investing—for 2023-24. The college sector is already working on and delivering careful management of demand-led spend, including a continuation of savings that have been delivered in this financial year. That is what the SFC would support the sector to do.

No—there is no number or figure that I am aware of that relates to that figure.

The figure of 1,200 is the Covid and pre-Covid number, yes. However, the 1,200 places can longer be sustained. We sustained them for two years to try to prevent that provision ending earlier than would have been the case. If we had followed the UK Government Covid funding, that provision would have ended two years ago, because that funding ended. What I am saying is that we kept those extra places going for another two years, but we are not going to be able to sustain that in the future.

The universities continue to develop modelling with regard to the balance between domestic and international students. The situation with the 1,200 Covid places and the pre-Covid places will not be a surprise to the universities, because the Covid places were never going to be sustained in the long term. Universities should be more than aware of that.

As I said, we have kept that provision going, with Scottish Government resources, beyond the time when that money was removed by the UK Government. The numbers will now return to the pre-Covid level, and the universities should have been anticipating that that would be the case.

First, the investment in higher education and further education is £2 billion, which is still a substantial investment. The media discussion has centred on the position of 1,200 places. If we go back to the origin of the issue, we see that, during Covid, the processes that were put in place for assessing highers meant that there was a different process of continual assessment. Therefore, there was a big spike in the number of students who were gaining university entrance. We used Covid moneys to fund an additional 1,200 places for universities so that they could address that spike. We have maintained those places for two years without the Covid funding being available, because that funding from the UK Government ended. We have managed to keep those places going for two years, but the position is not sustainable. The spike that resulted from changes that were made during the pandemic means that we have to return to the pre-Covid number of university places.

As I have set out, the financial position across the board is challenging, and it is easy is to point to where it is challenging but harder to come up with solutions. Every part of the public sector is impacted—

There is no difference in the process that is being deployed. The process between the Scottish Funding Council and the college sector will continue. The position will be clarified as quickly as possible. The final position will take into account some of the demand-led expenditure, to make sure that the landing position of colleges is what is required for them to deliver the services that they are required to deliver.

No part of the public sector will not be impacted when it comes to the quantum, but the process is no different this year from what it has been in other years. I accept that things are challenging when it comes to the quantum, but the process is no different.

I will come back to Springfield in a second, but Stewart Milne did very little building of affordable housing; that was not its main area of focus. Springfield accepts that it is one of its bigger areas of focus, but it also faces all the other very challenging pressures.

We have to keep a careful eye on all our Government policies, and monitor and evaluate any impact that they have. Our measures on the protection of tenants’ rights and those to keep rents affordable were to ensure that some of the huge cost of living challenges were not impacting on in situ tenants’ ability to afford their rents.

The reasons for our actions were well set out, but we must monitor our policies and be careful about any unintended consequences that they might have. We are listening to the sector on the issue and keeping a close eye on things.