Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, and I have laid that out. There is a reason for the differential—I have answered that question more than once.

On your point about capital investment, that is another issue that I understand. One of the current challenges is that, in many parts of the country, the college estate is the same age and is maturing, which brings pressures to bear. I know that the committee explored the issue with Karen Watt when she gave evidence. We have asked the SFC to develop an estates strategy and I am looking forward to receiving that. It will inform how we respond to some of the challenges. I recognise the challenges that are out there and we will seek to respond to them.

Mr Marra will be aware that there has been a significant uplift in the capital allocated to Scotland’s colleges this year precisely because we recognise that we need to renew our college estate.

Let me come back on that, because I do not understand the point that you are making. Are you suggesting that it is illegitimate for us to invest in that project? That is something that we are doing, and it is the type of response that you will see from the Scottish Government in investing in Scotland’s college estate.

We have seen that in the recent past, with the first-class facilities at Forth Valley College, for example. I am sure that Mr Marra has had the opportunity to visit those facilities, which are a direct result of investment by this Administration. We are looking to do the same with the Dunfermline learning campus, albeit that I am still waiting for the final proposition. We are committed to investing in Scotland’s college estate.

To go back to a point that I have made already, there is a significant constraint on public resource right now. That applies not only to our revenue budgets; it is also the case for our capital budgets. Mr Marra will understand that those budgets are under further pressure as a result of things such as inflationary pressure.

I recognise that that has been said—it has been said to me directly. It is not my view that colleges are second class or second rate by comparison to any other element of our education system. I believe that we have a continuum of education provision and that each element is as important as the others, from early years, through school to community learning and development—I will be candid and say that I have heard them say some of those things, too, as, I am sure, has Mr Marra—to colleges and universities. It is not my perception, and I have gone over in some detail—

First, I heard that evidence and I agree with what was said to the committee by college principals—and not only college principals, because you also heard from other folk from the business community and from elsewhere who said that similar relationships have been established that might not have been possible in days gone by. The figures that you quoted are a very positive indication of the benefits of regionalisation, and I continue to see more being done in that regard.

I recently had a very useful visit to Queen Margaret University, on which I was told about the clear pathways that have been established in conjunction with various colleges, which mean that a student who enters the college environment will understand at the outset that that pathway is available to them, rather than having to think, on getting their higher national certificate or higher national diploma, “What next?” Such students are aware at the outset that that opportunity exists. I want there to be more of that type of activity, and I want the sector to lead on that.

The positive news is that I think that that is happening in an enhanced way in a number of locations. These are not exclusive examples—there are others—but Forth Valley College has a good set-up with the University of Stirling when it comes to articulation pathways, as does North East Scotland College with Robert Gordon University. However, I would like there to be more of the advanced articulation that you referred to. The numbers that have been mentioned are welcome, but I would like there to be more cases of people who have acquired qualifications at college being able to go on to university and to enter it in second or third year. Through our learner journey activity, we want to work with the college and university sector on that.

Having said all that, I want to make the important point that, although colleges are a valuable means of articulation, we should recognise that HNCs and HNDs are very valuable qualifications in their own right, the gaining of which should be celebrated. If someone wants to take one of those qualifications and enter the world of work on that basis, that should be celebrated and welcomed, too.

I am glad that I can hear you now, Mr Dey. I apologise for any confusion.

I perceive there to be a role for us in that, but it is not the leading role. We are not a direct provider of student accommodation and never have been—there has never been a role for Government in that regard, and I do not detect any sense that that should change. However, that is not to say that the issue is not of substantial concern to me in my ministerial role. I have engaged directly with specific universities on the issue, particularly the University of Glasgow, which had a situation that was widely reported. At that stage, I got a degree of reassurance that the university was taking every step possible to work through the remaining issues that it had.

We are committed to introducing a student accommodation strategy, which will be informed by the purpose-built student accommodation review that is under way. We recently commissioned evidence from the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence. That evidence is now with us and will be considered by the purpose-built student accommodation review steering group. We will then publish that evidence—at that juncture, I will be happy to write directly to the committee. That will inform the consideration of what we might be able to do to ensure better provision of housing for students.

Of course, the issue is part of a wider challenge of pressure on the availability of housing. We have done work on, for example, short-term lets to better enable local authorities to regulate that market and ensure a wider supply of housing for other groups who require it, including students.

There is action that we can take, although we cannot take it alone. We have to work with the sector to ensure that it lives up to its responsibility for ensuring that the students that universities recruit are adequately housed. We will continue to work through that with our student accommodation strategy.

Work is under way, and I certainly want to have it substantially advanced before the next academic year. It would be disingenuous to suggest that some of the wider pressures that we are seeing will go away any time soon. For example, the University of Glasgow told me that it has plans to increase the amount of its directly provided student accommodation. That is the type of response that I hope to see in the sector. I recognise that that will not be achieved readily and that it requires lead-in time for planning applications, construction and so on. However, that activity has to start sooner rather than later, as do our actions in the student accommodation strategy.

I thank my friend Bob Doris for making best use of my time, as he always seeks to do.

Those were concerns that we had. They were on the basis of the broad thrust of the concerns that we laid out in relation to the potential unequal balance that could exist between the two Administrations. As things had been laid out, there was always the potential for a change of approach from the UK Government. The UK Government has certainly been consistent in talking about the independence of ARIA; I take that at face value and do not doubt the good faith with which that has been laid out. However, as things stood, there was the potential for that to change with different Administrations.

Although ARIA will be a creature of statute and could be subject to alteration in due course, we will now have in place a memorandum of understanding that lays out the clear independence of operation of the organisation—not just from the Scottish Government and the other devolved Administrations, which seemed to be the concern of the UK Government, but from the UK Government. The memorandum of understanding takes account of those particular concerns.

Convener, it might be a while since you took up the role but, as this is my first time at the committee since you did so, I congratulate you on assuming the convenership of the committee. I look forward to working with the committee and you in that role.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about the Scottish Government’s perspective on the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill. As I stated in my letter to the committee, the Scottish Government is supportive of the overall policy intent of the ARIA bill—namely, to create a new agency with independence from Government influence and with minimal bureaucracy in order to give it maximum freedom to achieve its aim of supporting visionary high-risk and high-pay-off research and development. However, the Scottish Government has had some fundamental issues with the bill that creates ARIA. The UK Government failed to consult fully on the bill before its introduction in the House of Commons. Since being given sight of the bill and the related policy statement, the Scottish Government’s ask has been consistent. We seek involvement in the agency through the chief scientific adviser for Scotland and removal of the reservation that is currently in the bill.

As you know, reservation is a significant step that the Scottish Government will recommend to the Scottish Parliament in only the most compelling circumstances. I believe that the Parliament would expect nothing less. The key reason that the UK Government has given for including a reservation in the bill has been that it is to create distance between ARIA and the Government. The Scottish Government has always recognised the need for that and, as I have set out, supports that. However, reservation has always seemed to be a heavy-handed and unequal approach to creating distance from the Government.

The committee will have seen the LCM in the name of the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, which laid that out as our position. I had intended to attend this meeting to reiterate our position. However, I am very glad to announce that the UK Government has finally recognised that reserving ARIA is an unnecessary step.

Two days ago, I agreed in principle with my UK counterpart, George Freeman, a memorandum of understanding and an amendment to remove the reservation from the ARIA bill. The memorandum of understanding will lay out very clearly the principle that ARIA will operate independently of ministerial direction from any Government. It will also contain arrangements for consultation of the chief scientific advisor for Scotland on ARIA as an alternative to board membership, which the Scottish Government has been willing to compromise on to come to a resolution.

George Freeman wrote to me yesterday afternoon, following our conversation, to agree such an approach, and I responded to him this morning. In the light of that, I anticipate that, subject to Cabinet agreement, the Scottish Government will seek to lodge a supplementary LCM recommending consent to the ARIA bill as soon as the UK Government has tabled an amendment in the House of Lords to remove the reservation from the bill. We will sign the memorandum of understanding as soon as possible once it is confirmed that the other devolved Administrations are also content.

I trust that the committee will agree that that is a very positive development.