Seòmar agus comataidhean

Sorry—I was coughing.

I go back to what we talked about earlier. If the thrust of your point is that we should be putting more money into the college sector to address that issue, that is fine, but where does that money come from?

We have been very clear that we are in a regrettable financial position and cannot put more money into the colleges. I spoke to EIS-FELA last week and made it clear. If there is no more money available from Government and the colleges are to fund that pay increase—unions are perfectly entitled to look for a fair settlement from their employers—unfortunately, the only way to do that is through job losses and course cuts. I wish that it was not so.

Do you mean in the college sector?

The international strategy is being worked on. It is coming. The purpose and principles statement is pending. I am keen to see a bit more meat on the bones of that than there was initially. That is an element of the delay on that.

However, we have a number of things coming forward in a fairly concise period. We want to get the choreography of those right, not to manage it but to give universities, colleges and the committee the opportunity to consider matters in the round. The Withers review is also coming. The cabinet secretary and I are considering the timings of all of that in as much detail as possible in order to allow the two sectors to respond and the committee, Parliament and wider stakeholders to take a view. Our intention is to have extensive consultation with people on the back of that—I mean face-to-face consultation with the colleges and universities—to get good feedback on where we need to take all that work.

We are trying to take swift action, but we are also planning for the longer term to provide stability across all the sectors. We also want to have, across the skills and education landscape, a coherent narrative and a clear direction. In its work, the committee rightly indicated that colleges needed a clear steer on what their purpose is. I totally agree with that. That is what we are looking to do. They want it and we want to give them it.

The question is where the colleges fit into the overall landscape. I happen to think that this will be a key part of what we do as we move forward. However, at the moment, the colleges are doing so much and going in so many different directions—indeed, some are operating differently—and we need to make things much more coherent. We also need to declutter the landscape, because it is far too complex. I think that we can do that in the short to medium term, to make things a lot easier for people to progress.

I recognise that that is a bit of a waffly answer, but you will have got the thrust of what I am saying. I commit to keeping the committee as up to date as possible, with regular information.

I will answer the question in as much detail as I can. Accommodation charge increases of such a size are concerning. I guess that the University of St Andrews would say that it is also providing £24 million in bursaries for poorer students. I have no doubt that it would rebut your point.

You are right about the situation at the two universities, which I have raised informally with them and will raise formally. I want to understand the position, although justifying such charges is a matter for them.

It is easy to look at reserves, as at underspends, and say, “Wow—that’s a lot of money.” If a body has that money and it is a rainy day, why is it not being spent? However, we must recognise—I certainly recognise—that it is reasonable to assume that institutions will retain reserves that are the equivalent of three to six months of their expenditure. We need to be a bit careful about how reserves are viewed, especially if they are not cash reserves that can be readily drawn down.

There is a balance to be struck, but I take your point about accommodation charges. I think that I have had correspondence from you or one of your colleagues about that, which I will respond to.

One would be concerned if reserves were being banked just for the purpose of having them, but I suspect that some of the universities that you talk about are investing incredibly heavily in a variety of ways. I would be concerned about excessive reserves, but we need to look calmly at the situation and at what universities are delivering.

Indeed—I was shocked. [Laughter.]

I spoke to Sir Peter last night, and we talked about that in detail. He was trying to make a helpful contribution to the debate. I understand entirely where he is coming from, but his central premise is wrong. The number of Scotland-domiciled students who go to university in England has come down. There is not an increase; it has come down. I will write to you with the figure on that.

Anecdotally, I do not doubt that Sir Peter is aware of certain cases. The central premise of the argument that he advanced is flawed, though. Nevertheless, of course people will hold different views on tuition fees. Your party holds different views from mine, Mr Kerr. The SNP fundamentally believes that a person’s ability to learn, as opposed to their ability to pay for it, should determine their opportunity to go to university.

Another aspect that been a little lost in the discussion that followed that was that it is not simply about saying that certain students would have to pay tuition fees, as Sir Peter argued for in relation to those from wealthier families. They would have loan repayments as well, so it would involve substantial sums of money.

You are entitled to hold a view, Mr Kerr, and Mr Rennie’s party will have a view. I am sorry to intrude upon Mr Rennie’s grief about tuition fees. We hold to a view, which I am happy to defend. However, I am also happy to talk to people such as Sir Peter, who is a deeply respected individual. As I said, we discussed the matter last night. I will not share what we discussed, but it was a constructive conversation.

The convener has hit the nail on the head in that this is principally about the teachers’ pay settlement. Members will recall that the former Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills indicated at this committee in February that the moneys owing to the teachers’ pay settlement would have to come from within the education budget. That is principally what is at play here. There are always pressures on portfolio budgets at a variety of times, but that is the principal one that led to our taking this regrettable decision.

Mr Doris, I think that you and others are well aware that the financial challenges that are faced by the education portfolio are replicated across Government. As a consequence of issues outwith our control, the Scottish Government’s budget has suffered a significant hit. The public finances face what is probably the biggest challenge since devolution, so it is not the case that we can ask other portfolios to transfer money across to education—I wish that it were—because there are challenges for all areas of Government and we have to get through this in the best way that we can.

I am entirely aware of City of Glasgow College’s situation, both from the trade union perspective and from that of the principal. We need to be clear that the actions taken by City of Glasgow College are not linked to the £26 million, which was intended for transition purposes. That was being discussed with the Scottish Funding Council. However, I recognise that a flat cash settlement for colleges creates challenges. You will appreciate that colleges are stand-alone institutions and will react to situations individually. I recognise that the situation in the City of Glasgow College is particularly difficult, and I will meet the unions in due course. However, I am very clear that that situation is linked not to the £26 million but to wider issues in the college sector.