Seòmar agus comataidhean

Colleges are stand-alone institutions, Ms Duncan-Glancy. They are answerable to their boards for the decisions that they make in that regard—that is where the responsibility lies. In a broader sense, when principals make difficult decisions of that nature, I hope that they are mindful of the responsibilities that Ruth Maguire indicated and of the need to preserve key courses. It is entirely up to the college principals what they do, but those are our expectations. Whatever decisions they take must also be in line with the fair work agenda and must be taken in conjunction with trade unions.

I think that is a fair assessment and that it is, unfortunately, the reality. The colleges have been very clear about what the implications might be if they were to meet the EIS-FELA request for a pay settlement in full and about what that might mean for job losses. That is regrettable, but it is where we are.

When I met EIS-FELA representatives last week, I encouraged them to try to find common ground with the employers and I did the same when I met the employers. I hope and believe that they will shortly resume discussions. I hope that that will lead to an agreement, but that remains to be seen. There must be some realism about the situation and I urge both sides to get together to find a way through.

I want to go back to the central premise of your point. You spoke about a figure representing the decline in funding for university students. The universities arrive at that figure by using a methodology that is at odds with the one that is used not only by the Scottish Government but by your colleagues down south. I therefore challenge the figure that is being quoted. Do I recognise the general point that you made about decline? Yes, I do. However, if you use the same methodology as is used by the UK Government and ourselves, it is not on the scale that has been portrayed.

I cannot sit here and tell you that the financial picture will suddenly become rosier. As I said earlier, we will work closely with universities and colleges to do all that we can to improve sustainability in both areas.

They were actually informed as soon as it was practical to do that. The Scottish Funding Council process means that the final allocations are normally advised at the end of May. We wanted to do that as soon as we possibly could, and they were announced at the beginning of May. None of this is easy. We recognise the problems that it caused, but we did try to make them aware of the situation as quickly as we could.

No, I am not concerned about that. I recognise that the timing is not good, and neither is the loss of the £46 million—although I should say, for context, that the loss of £20 million from the universities budget is a very small proportion of it. I am not downplaying that—I just wanted to provide some context, and I will come back to Sally Mapstone’s comments in a moment. I will just say that, from the discussions that I have had with the colleges, in particular, I think that we can do enough in the short term to stabilise the situation, which will allow us to kick on with what we—and they—need and want to do.

As for the universities, I have a great deal of respect for Sally Mapstone, but the facts do not bear out her comments about managed decline. If you look at the performance of the universities—and I can go through that information if you wish—you will see that this is a sector that, despite the challenges, is vibrant, with a fantastic enthusiasm about it. The loss of the additional funding was a blow, but I think that, for the universities, the concern was more about the message behind that than the hard cash. They felt that we had somehow deprioritised them, when nothing could be further from the truth. However, I have taken the message on board, and we have been having a lot of discussions with universities about how we deal with this.

They are, indeed, but, as I have said on a number of occasions, if you want more money for universities, it will have to come from somewhere else. It is just a fact—that is where we are.

I have been speaking to individual university principals in recent days, and I think—I certainly hope—that there is an understanding that we value our universities. Two weeks ago, I hosted an event with the German education secretary and a number of our universities, and I think that that alone sends a message about the value that we place on their role as we move forward.

I get the contradiction that you have alluded to between that and the financial side of things, but I absolutely assure you that, like our colleges, our universities will be front and centre of what we are doing.

As the then cabinet secretary indicated to you at the time, that will have to be worked through the education budget as a whole, which is what is happening.

I am glad to hear that you will follow Sir Peter’s lead by taking a calm and rational approach, Mr Kerr.

It is, indeed, a lot of money, Mr Kerr, and you will recall that all parties called for efforts to get that dispute settled. That is what we did. It was welcomed, and you will appreciate that, in the context of the education budget, the current education secretary is having to make some tough decisions.

The convener touched on some of this earlier, but I want to focus on the physical environments of prison settings and secure accommodation. Some people are concerned about people going to secure accommodation instead of a young offenders institution, but I do not believe that it is a soft option. I have visited Rossie and have been in the secure unit. For the benefit of people who think that it is a soft option, will you outline what is inappropriate about the physical prison setting for young people who have committed serious offences? What is it about the secure accommodation setting that deprives them of their liberty? Is it a secure and appropriate setting?