Seòmar agus comataidhean

To be blunt, that is not for me to do. That is one of the issues that needs to be resolved in that setting. If we can get into a space where there is a better atmosphere and a better culture, all those things can be aired by the participants. It is not for the Government to take on that role. The point that you raise has been raised with me before, and it needs to be looked at, just as the employer side’s approach to negotiation and the mechanics of the process need to be looked at. The agenda that is taken forward, if there is an independent facilitator, can be agreed by both sides and explored in that context. What I have seen so far is that, without going into the specifics, both sides are prepared to look at such matters.

I accept that. I noticed that you were quiet on the issue of tuition fees, so you probably understand. However, in all seriousness, you are right to push me on this issue, because it is incredibly important.

The success of the pilot projects really encouraged me. I was blown away by what I saw. We are trying to learn from those. We are trying to encourage the colleges to get involved, which they did not do last time—to be fair, I think that that was just about the short notice that they got—and develop and build on those projects. Budget permitting, I would like to ramp this up pretty quickly. However, I stress that that is budget permitting.

The way in which questions are asked is quite interesting. The question that the SFC and Colleges Scotland put to the colleges was whether they had any assets that were not being utilised that they would like to dispose of. However, as a college chair said to me, importantly, colleges were not asked whether they had any assets that they were utilising that they might like to dispose of. We expect a reasonable uptake of the opportunity to dispose of assets, perhaps on a scale that is beyond what was originally envisaged.

Yes—we undertake to do that.

No. The plan with the disposal of assets is about investment in infrastructure of all sorts in those colleges. It has been taken forward on that basis.

I absolutely take that point, and I hope that we are demonstrating that. There is the move to bring apprenticeship funding into one location from the current twin-track approach. It is the same with foundation apprenticeships—if we can bring that into the one centre, it will be easier to tie it all together, and I hope that it will be more transparent, as well. Transparency and simplification are driving our agenda.

The 10-year period that you refer to also includes the period of austerity that we have endured. I make that point in passing.

It is true to say that the funding of domestic students has not risen in the way that universities would have wanted. I accept that. International students do subsidise the system. As you are aware, Mr Kerr, one of the problems that we encounter is that there has been an impact on international students because of some of the measures that were introduced by the previous United Kingdom Government and, which is just as important, because of some of the rhetoric surrounding those measures. There have been problems. We are working actively with the university sector to undo some of that damage. That will be only a mitigation, but we are working with universities through the international education strategy.

Alongside that, and despite the financial challenges that we face, there is a small budget for the promotion of Scotland as a come-to destination for higher education. That has been done in conjunction with the universities and the messaging is directed by them. We are trying not only to ensure that Scotland continues to be an attractive destination but to broaden the cohort of international students so that there is less exposure to certain markets.

That is the twin approach that we are taking, in conjunction with the universities, while recognising that it is unlikely that there will suddenly be a significant improvement in finances, particularly those coming from Westminster. We must play the hand that we are dealt and work with our partners to address that.

Could you perhaps expand on that? It would be helpful to me to understand what sort of models you are talking about.

I would characterise that slightly differently. I think that the SFC should have the power to investigate issues that are reported to it. It will not always be the case that what is alleged will have occurred in its entirety. We need to be careful about that in some instances.

You make a fair point. The SFC, as the oversight body, ought to have powers and should be part of a structure so that, when there is an alleged issue in a college, that can be escalated and investigated and, if action is required, that action can be taken.

I return the question to you. Are you telling me that you would rather that we had not facilitated the closure of the deal?