Seòmar agus comataidhean

On that point, to pick up on what you have all said about fiscal sustainability, and on Mary Senior’s point that we have seen real-terms cuts year on year, how would you suggest that the tension there is resolved?

The Scottish Government’s overall budget has not gone up in real terms—that is outwith the Scottish Government’s control. Both the UCU and the NUS have urged the Government to make better use of devolved taxation powers. That is a legitimate position—and one with which my party would agree—but even by doing that, the Government would not have been able to keep up with inflation in recent years. What does sustainable funding for the sector look like in a situation where the current devolution settlement means that matching inflation—given that inflation is obviously outwith the Scottish Government’s control—is not realistic for the overall Scottish Government budget?

Are you saying that, within the budget overall, a higher proportion should be allocated to higher education? If so, where would you suggest that that comes from? Alternatively, is there something else that you mean when you talk about sustainability, such as a more fundamental reform of the funding model?

I am keen to follow that up, but others might want to come in on the initial question first.

I am sure that both unions have strong positions on the issues that have just been raised.

I would love to get into the details of the disparity in reserves, but I believe that colleagues will deal with some of that.

If it is okay, I would like to briefly follow up on what David Belsey said about the courses that colleges provide. Is it realistic to expect every college to be able to offer every course?

You said that it would not be advisable for us to move to a model of having a single college for Glasgow. At the moment, there are multiple colleges in Glasgow. Should all three colleges in Glasgow provide every course, or should we not recognise that, in an area where there are multiple colleges that a young person or student could realistically commute to, it would be more effective to have centres of specialism, whereby some colleges could develop a depth of expertise in certain areas?

Should the bill include reporting provisions? I completely agree that having blunt national targets could undermine the more nuanced approach that is needed in different communities, but it is important to ensure that there is still a national focus and that there are requirements for Government to report to Parliament, even if that report is, as you indicated, essentially a consolidation of the efforts and outcomes of a range of other organisations. Would you be open to having reporting requirements? It would be a mistake to put too much specific detail into the bill, but could there be mechanisms or ministerial powers to create reporting frameworks, so that we have something that allows for effective national scrutiny five, 10 or 15 years from now?

My question follows on quite neatly from that point, because I am interested in how we are actually going to measure success and what the outcomes will look like.

You mentioned the census. It was interesting that the census indicated two directions of travel. On one hand, in places such as Glasgow there is significant growth in the number of children being educated through the medium of Gaelic, so there is a growth in the number of people who are speaking Gaelic between 9 and 3 on school days. Some, but not all, of them will speak it when they go home, but they certainly will not speak it when they go to the shops or the youth club or when they are on the bus or are applying for a job.

However, as you pointed out, the last remaining majority Gaelic-speaking communities are now no longer majority Gaelic speaking, which means that how we measure success will be different across the country. What do you see as being the key measures of success from the Government’s perspective?

I would like to go back to Michael Marra’s question about in-year budget savings and the path to balance. The permanent secretary mentioned the 2024-25 budget-setting process as being painful, which is certainly my recollection of it from the position that we were in at that point. What we ended up with was a prudent budget but, inevitably, it still carries pressure. That is inevitable every year, particularly given that public sector pay negotiations are not in sequence with the budget, so there is always a level of uncertainty. The Government will have to go through a similar process this year with the path to balance. The amount varies each year, but there is a path-to-balance process every year.

Part of my frustration with the path-to-balance processes that I was involved in was the length of time that it often took to make decisions that everybody seemed to agree were inevitable—either decisions that something would have to be cut or decisions that something was of such high priority, because of the impact that a cut would have on the public or because it was a political priority or whatever, that it definitely was not going to be cut. However, the length of time that it took created poor value for money.

In 2023-24, the delays to the flexible workforce development fund would be one example of that, but there were lots of others. Is the way we do in-year balancing not quite a poor-value process? There is a whole series of decisions that get dragged out beyond the first, second and even third quarters. Financial decisions are being made in the fourth quarter and money is being released that, inevitably, will not have the same value as if it had been released in the first or second quarter or if it had not been released at all and had just been carried over.

I am all good, convener. There is no point in repeating what Michael Marra asked; I had the same line of questioning.