Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not want to just move on from the £26 million, minister. I get that it was for one year, but I thought that the on-going discussions were about getting some comfort and indication that the Government would be keen to see the money baselined into future settlements, with colleges changing their five-year plans accordingly. That has just not happened. My question, then, is this: will any Barnett consequentials that might appear for your portfolio be directed at colleges, given that they are the big losers from the reprofiling of moneys to fund the pay deals in schools?

In Glasgow? Would the money go to colleges in Glasgow—full stop—rather than to colleges in general?

And will those funds be recurring or will they be non-recurring funds?

Have you made the case to Government colleagues for moneys to be transferred from other portfolios into the education portfolio?

I have no further questions on that, but when I meet the EIS-FELA at City of Glasgow College in a week or so, I will be asked those questions, so I am sure that you will understand why I am asking you those questions.

I want to ask about the £26 million. We were all pretty shocked when that was taken off the table; indeed, I was involved in representations to get the Government, and your predecessors, to signal that that £26 million would be embedded in the core settlement. As I understand it, if it had been, we would be looking at fewer redundancies—and any redundancies would, we hope, have all been voluntary severance—and fewer course mergers and amalgamations. As we speak, colleges are finishing five-year forward plans. If that £26 million had been embedded in each and every year, we would have more lecturers, more associated staff and more courses. They were really disappointed in that respect. Although one year of £26 million might not have impacted on courses, lecturers and numbers, do you acknowledge that, had the money been embedded, it would absolutely have had an impact?

I have said for a number of years now, including in submissions, that the regional board should go. Would the £675,000 that you mentioned—every penny of it—be retained by colleges in Glasgow, should the board be abolished?

I am content to agree, convener.

At the moment, young people of 16 or 17 years, depending on whether they are already part of the children’s system, do not have the same rights in police custody as younger children do. The bill extends additional rights to young people in relation to police custody. Can you say a little about what those rights are and how they will benefit young people?

Thank you. I will not dwell on this aspect, as it is a pretty uncontentious part of the bill, but I note that the bill provides that young people will not be able to waive their right to legal representation, which is an additional protection.

At last week’s meeting, I nudged witnesses on the issue of whether young people should ever be detained in a police station. I am not saying that this is necessarily my view, but it has been suggested that a “place of safety” should never be a police station, unless that is—I am stumbling to say it—impractical. Do you think that there is a case for saying that it should be set out in the bill that no young person should ever be detained in a police station? If not, in what circumstances do you think that that would be unavoidable?