Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will throw a question to Professor Priestley on the committees in a second but, before I do so, Barry Black, I want to ask you whether, if MSPs choose not to reject the bill and allow it to go forward, you have clear in your mind, say, three key amendments that you think that we should be proposing to actually deliver the meaningful reform that you have asked for in your submission.

I will put my final question to Professor Priestley, but Professor Donaldson may wish to come in, given his remarks earlier.

The University of Stirling’s submission welcomes that the bill makes provision for learner and practitioner charters, interest committees and representation on the board of the new body. We heard from Professor Muir that certain challenges might arise around that. Will those proposals ensure that the new body is appropriately shaped and responsive to learners, teachers and stakeholders?

Good morning, Professor Muir.

I was very interested in what you said in your opening remarks. First, you talked about the chronology of how we have got to this point. In 2021, the Scottish Government announced that it would scrap the SQA and create a separate inspectorate. Your report, which came out in 2022, made recommendations that, presumably, were based on the presumption that the SQA would be scrapped and the inspection function removed from Education Scotland. Would you have recommended those changes had they not already been pre-programmed by the Government?

I am very grateful for that.

You have said that we need to look at the education system as a whole and that its complexity is remarkable—and I agree with you. The bill, however, is part of a wider set of reforms and policy work around education. You mentioned in your opening remarks Hayward, Withers and Morgan as well as several others, and said that, taken together, what their reports said will meet the needs of Scotland’s education system. Some voices have suggested that doing it like this—that is, in almost a piecemeal, a-bit-here, a-bit-there way—is not the optimum approach. What is your view of that? Is now the right time to introduce this bill before other aspects of the reform programme are bottomed out?

George Adam put to you the point about international students. The committee has heard that there are Scottish Government figures that say that the cash for each student place is about the same as it was 10 years ago, which is a 19 per cent reduction in real terms. We have also heard that there is a funding shortfall of about £1,500 per student. The National Union of Students Scotland told the committee that that has led to an “overreliance”—that is the NUS’s word—on cross-subsidy by international students. What is the Scottish Government’s response to that and will anything change as a result of the budget?

First of all, minister, I will interrogate a couple of the points that have just been put to you.

On the widening access agenda, Scottish Government analysis suggests that the reduction in the higher education resource budget will actually prejudice that agenda. This committee has heard from the commissioner for fair access that there are fears about the 2026 interim target. What is the Scottish Government doing to monitor the effect of that reduction in the post-school budget on widening access for students from certain backgrounds?

This meeting is about pre-budget scrutiny and John Mason began by asking you whether universities are financially sound. You said that you are working with universities to give them a sustainable future. I have a quick question to get the answer on the record. Do you accept that, as it is currently structured, there is a shortfall in higher education financing?

I am grateful for that response—and I have no doubt that we could trade such views—but the committee has heard from a number of witnesses that, noting the shortfall from Government, which I examined earlier, and the exposure to international fluctuations, which we have also considered, various possible solutions and models could be explored to maximise the opportunity within the current Scottish Government budget. Is the Scottish Government open to considering modified funding models with a view to optimisation, or is it closed-minded to such investigation? Will the Government carry on with what you have just acknowledged is a suboptimal model?

Certainly. The committee has heard from Dr Gavan Conlon about some possibilities. The NUS suggested some others, and the University and College Union Scotland—the UCU—has suggested some. That is all in the Official Reports of previous evidence sessions. They all made very helpful suggestions, which I am sure you have considered in the past. I am just wondering whether the Scottish Government is open to such considerations and debates.

I am very grateful for that response.