Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will start in a similar vein to how my colleague Willie Rennie finished, which is to say two things. First, it is fair to say that students and staff at many institutions across Scotland are worried and are having what they think and believe is—and what objectively looks like—a pretty hard time, if I am honest. Many of you have acknowledged that. Secondly, I would like to acknowledge the fact that our universities are some of the most leading and well-respected institutions in the world. I genuinely appreciate the work that you and your staff teams across Scotland do for the country and for students attending them.

I will start with a question for Professor Mathieson, which goes back to some of the points that we heard earlier around the particular situation and your circumstances at the University of Edinburgh. We have done a lot of work on this, so I want to get something clear on the record. Trade unions have told us that they did not feel that many alternatives were explored or that, if alternatives were explored, they did not understand what they were, partly because they felt that they did not have the information they needed and partly because they were not sure that they had been explored at all.

Could you set out for us what alternatives specifically were explored before reaching the conclusion that you have drawn, which is that you have to reduce the staff?

Thank you; I appreciate that.

Professor Miller, one representation that has been made to me on the circumstances in your university is that some of the potential job losses disproportionately impact on the social sciences division. It has been put to me that many widening access students, mature students and first-generation students attend that particular area. What is your response to that concern?

I understand that. You have spoken about responsible leadership and responsibilities. You will know that staff, too, have responsibilities, not only to their subject but also to the students and in respect of their own personal circumstances—their home and their life. They are finding it difficult, particularly when, as they have told us, they are not privy to the information that you say that you have given them. The committee is navigating two sets of truths, I suppose, or two sets of circumstances that we are trying to understand.

As a way forward, would you consider meeting the joint unions on the back of today’s session to talk in more detail with them about the specific operating alternatives that you looked at in order to show that you have left no stone unturned—as Ross Greer said—and have wrung as much out of every other area that you considered? People understand the issues of liquidity and the things that are fixed or not fixed. However, would you commit to meeting them again and to having that open dialogue? If different decisions can be come to, that would be great; if the same decisions are come to, at least people will feel that they have been included, have been part of the discussion and that your legal obligations as an employer have been carried out.

Thank you. Briefly, if staff or trade unions and their representatives have any questions or concerns about the impact assessment, would you be prepared to discuss it with them?

Revisiting issues when more is known is welcome.

My final question is for Claire McPherson and Professor Rigby. I am struck by the evidence that you submitted from Universities Scotland that spoke about the biggest issue being the underfunding of the sector and the levelling down of public funding. From what Professor Rigby said, the operating environment for universities is almost the worst of both worlds. Given all the things that universities are being asked to do now through the SFC and its allocations, widening access to protect Scottish-domiciled students’ experience and to enhance research, are they being asked to do the impossible with the resources and the model that they have?

I share some of other members’ concerns. I am not convinced that the bill will address the problems, because the evidence that we have had does not suggest that. In fact, some witnesses have suggested that it is not structural change that is needed but leadership.

There is a need to grow apprenticeships. Modern apprenticeship starts are below the pre-pandemic level, foundation apprenticeships—the demand for which is still clear—are capped, and graduate apprenticeships are static. The Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board said that the model is stagnant and rigid. We know that the rate of positive destinations for people who leave secondary 4 is decreasing and that tens of thousands of young people in Scotland are not in education, employment or training.

The way that people have characterised the problem is not to say that we need structural change but to say that cultural barriers are holding back work-based learning, that demand for training in technical and engineering-based occupations outstrips supply and that there are skills shortages in various areas. Will the minister set out how the bill will address any of that and when we can expect to see more people enjoying an apprenticeship?

I do not think that anyone has put it to us that bureaucratic structural change is necessary in order to address what does not work well.

I can see that Mr Mott is looking to come in—I will just finish my point. One of the concerns that we have heard about the move is that SDS has stronger links with business and industry than the Scottish Funding Council. The minister spoke about the need for a connection between careers advice in schools, national skills planning and apprenticeships. That will all be dismantled if we take one part of the SDS product and put it elsewhere.

What is the minister’s response to the concern that business and industry will not be able to influence the process and, therefore, will not be able to address some of the key issues that act as barriers to young people accessing apprenticeships?

I share Ross Greer’s concern, but I also appreciate the recognition for the staff concerned that the minister has put on the record.

I have two questions, the first of which builds on the answers that the minister gave to John Mason. What, specifically, is his vision for a co-ordinated approach? How does he hope that the colleges in the region will collaborate to provide the best opportunity for skills across the region?

Secondly, when can colleges in Glasgow expect to receive any of the funds—to the tune of about £500,000, I think—that were top sliced for the board?

Thank you—I appreciate that.