Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that that sits with another minister, and I cannot speak for my colleagues.

Mr Kerr is presumably asking about the assessment that has been made.

I go back to the conversations that we had earlier today. If we want to put more money into a particular aspect of education, it has to come from somewhere else.

There has been an ask from the three existing colleges in the city of Glasgow that we revisit the Glasgow Colleges Regional Board structures. We are currently considering the options on that, but there is a bit of a simplistic view about the process. I think that some people hold the view that we can move fairly quickly on it. I answered a question from, I think, Pam Duncan-Glancy on that in the chamber.

We are identifying the legislative process for revisiting the structures. If that is primary legislation, it could take quite some time. If it is achievable through secondary legislation, it could take somewhere between nine and 12 months, because we have to consult on it. Therefore, we could not facilitate an immediate change.

I am aware of what the colleges wish for and of Mr Doris’s view about how the moneys that are caught up in running the GCRB could be better spent. I am also acutely aware of the staff who work for the GCRB. It is an unsettling time for them while all the speculation happens.

I am keen that we get to the point at which we can indicate what our thinking is on the matter, but, in all circumstances, it is important that the governance, whether at individual college level or regional level, provides appropriate oversight. That is essential. To go back to the answer that I gave to Willie Rennie on the subject initially, we are taking a little bit of time to consider the best way to proceed on the matter and will write to the committee once we have reached that point.

If I may, convener, I will take a moment to outline our approach to the Withers review. It is certainly radical. I welcome it, not least because it takes a look at the whole skills landscape, whereas previous reviews looked at bits and pieces of it. It is incredibly useful. I was going to say that it is the start of a discussion, but it is not, because we are going to make changes.

Although we warmly welcome the broad direction of travel that Withers sets, there are 15 clear recommendations, five of which are structural. Significant implications for individuals as well as organisations arise from those recommendations and I feel that it is appropriate for us to take a small amount of time to interrogate those implications. There might be a slightly different way of taking forward that work. We might want to go further. There might be some things that, for a variety of reasons that emerge, are not the right thing to do. In a general sense, however, Withers points to the way forward. It is a terrific report.

What time will we take to reflect on that? We have already spoken to all the major stakeholders and we have asked them to take a bit of time—six to eight weeks—to reflect in detail on how the Withers report impacts on them directly and in a broader sense, because they might spot areas in which they can contribute. I had a meeting with the Royal Society of Edinburgh yesterday. It has a good overview of the sector, so it would be useful to hear what it is thinking. I encourage the other stakeholders to do that reflection.

At the conclusion of that rough period of time, we will engage directly with stakeholders to get their thoughts on how we can implement the recommendations and what we ought to do. I have to say that the response to Withers has already been positive. I am conscious that some would have us simply go and do it now, but we need to take a bit of time to talk to our trade union colleagues and others, and we are thinking it all through in great detail.

Although we are working to a rough timetable, I would hope and expect to come back to Parliament soon after the recess, to make a statement, if that is what Parliament wishes, or whatever. Perhaps I would come back to the committee and update members on our thinking that way.

I would also say—and I mean this genuinely—that I know that a number of members of the committee—Stephen Kerr is a case in point—have taken a great deal of interest in the principles of reform of the sector, so my door is open to anyone who wants to talk to me about their thinking on this. We have a fantastic opportunity to make much-needed change and to get it right.

It is therefore important that we interrogate the review, look at whether any unintended consequences would flow from anything that James Withers has recommended and then get on with addressing the reform agenda.

I cannot speak for what Wales is doing. I hope that Mr Rennie will also appreciate that I have been in post for only 12 weeks. What I would say about where we are and what we need to do is that we need to look at a number of things to get this right.

For example, I would like to assess the allocations for Turing that were made to Scottish institutions in 2022-23 to help determine what the gaps are. It is about asking what gets awarded funding, what does not, and why. That will help us to understand what we would need to look to plug. As the committee knows, there is no inward mobility element to Turing and no inward or outward mobility for staff. Of course, there is also no youth element. We know that, but we need to understand the basis on which Turing awards. We will see shortly what the awards will be for 2023-24, which will also inform our thinking. We are waiting to see that.

On where we are currently, we are actively engaged on the issue. In the next short while, I would anticipate us launching a pilot project in conjunction with the sectors that I have mentioned and taking it from there. That is my intention at the moment.

As we have just started those conversations with Universities Scotland, you will appreciate that I cannot do that. However, I anticipate it being in this financial year.

I recognise entirely the role of research and universities in all this.

There has been extensive engagement on that. We believe that the scheme would be covered by a six-month study visa, which would take account of a term. We believe that it will be okay, but we await final confirmation on that.

As Ms Duncan-Glancy is well aware, one of the significant challenges for the Government, currently and previously, has been budget. We have faced enormous budget challenges. That has been a factor in—as Mr Rennie would put it—holding up the development of the programme. There is no doubt about that, but that does not mean that we will not fulfil the commitment.