Seòmar agus comataidhean

That matter is being looked at, as are a number of issues. I am very much alive to that ask. Every time I meet Susan Stewart, she reminds me of it.

As you would expect, I say that the pie is only the pie, and we have considerable asks from various quarters. Before the convener reminds me, I recall the committee’s ask, when I was a member of it, to address the disparity between the moneys that are paid to colleges for the first two years of courses and those that are paid to universities. There is a whole range of asks. The part-time student request is particularly valid. I cannot say that we have progressed on it, but we are well down the road with it—it is in train. I cannot say that I expect it to be resolved quickly, but we are looking at it, as we are looking at a number of things.

The situation with the Erasmus replacement programme is that we ran 20 pilot projects, as you are aware, and that those are currently being formally assessed. Anecdotally, they were a big success. We are working with the universities on a second tranche for the coming year.

What you alluded to is a full-scale roll-out of a programme. We are not at that stage yet, for two reasons: first, because of the financial position, and secondly, because the universities, with which we have worked closely, have asked that we redirect some of our funding in that area to the international promotion to which I alluded earlier. We are trying to take a twin-track approach, which is to use a bit of marketing—if that is the right word—to attract international students while we develop the rest of the programme. This coming year, I hope that we can broaden out the initiative to the colleges, which did not take part in the first year—there were no college applications—and to the wider youth sector.

As you know, our programme is set up to complement the Turing scheme, so that there is no duplication. There has been some inbound activity. I met a group of students from multiple European countries on one of those pilot programmes, and some staff.

I am sure that you will be disappointed by that answer. I know that you were hoping for us to be in an all-singing, all-dancing programme, but that is where we are. It is progressing in conjunction with the sector.

To be absolutely open with you, I was a little thrown by that information. The mental health funding for the colleges exists because the Government made a commitment for three years, which it honoured. It extended it for a year—only for a year—for a transition period, then the funding came to an end. I am therefore a little unclear about what is meant. I do not want to duck the question, because you are right to ask it. We will write back to the committee quickly—perhaps separately—on that, once I have a bit of clarity on it. We continue to fund the NUS’s Think Positive programme, but I am not clear about what is alluded to in the letter, and I want to have a look at it.

My understanding is that the think positive scheme continues, but I will confirm that in writing.

The way in which questions are asked is quite interesting. The question that the SFC and Colleges Scotland put to the colleges was whether they had any assets that were not being utilised that they would like to dispose of. However, as a college chair said to me, importantly, colleges were not asked whether they had any assets that they were utilising that they might like to dispose of. We expect a reasonable uptake of the opportunity to dispose of assets, perhaps on a scale that is beyond what was originally envisaged.

Yes—we undertake to do that.

No. The plan with the disposal of assets is about investment in infrastructure of all sorts in those colleges. It has been taken forward on that basis.

I absolutely take that point, and I hope that we are demonstrating that. There is the move to bring apprenticeship funding into one location from the current twin-track approach. It is the same with foundation apprenticeships—if we can bring that into the one centre, it will be easier to tie it all together, and I hope that it will be more transparent, as well. Transparency and simplification are driving our agenda.

The 10-year period that you refer to also includes the period of austerity that we have endured. I make that point in passing.

It is true to say that the funding of domestic students has not risen in the way that universities would have wanted. I accept that. International students do subsidise the system. As you are aware, Mr Kerr, one of the problems that we encounter is that there has been an impact on international students because of some of the measures that were introduced by the previous United Kingdom Government and, which is just as important, because of some of the rhetoric surrounding those measures. There have been problems. We are working actively with the university sector to undo some of that damage. That will be only a mitigation, but we are working with universities through the international education strategy.

Alongside that, and despite the financial challenges that we face, there is a small budget for the promotion of Scotland as a come-to destination for higher education. That has been done in conjunction with the universities and the messaging is directed by them. We are trying not only to ensure that Scotland continues to be an attractive destination but to broaden the cohort of international students so that there is less exposure to certain markets.

That is the twin approach that we are taking, in conjunction with the universities, while recognising that it is unlikely that there will suddenly be a significant improvement in finances, particularly those coming from Westminster. We must play the hand that we are dealt and work with our partners to address that.

Could you perhaps expand on that? It would be helpful to me to understand what sort of models you are talking about.