Seòmar agus comataidhean

There has been an ask from the three existing colleges in the city of Glasgow that we revisit the Glasgow Colleges Regional Board structures. We are currently considering the options on that, but there is a bit of a simplistic view about the process. I think that some people hold the view that we can move fairly quickly on it. I answered a question from, I think, Pam Duncan-Glancy on that in the chamber.

We are identifying the legislative process for revisiting the structures. If that is primary legislation, it could take quite some time. If it is achievable through secondary legislation, it could take somewhere between nine and 12 months, because we have to consult on it. Therefore, we could not facilitate an immediate change.

I am aware of what the colleges wish for and of Mr Doris’s view about how the moneys that are caught up in running the GCRB could be better spent. I am also acutely aware of the staff who work for the GCRB. It is an unsettling time for them while all the speculation happens.

I am keen that we get to the point at which we can indicate what our thinking is on the matter, but, in all circumstances, it is important that the governance, whether at individual college level or regional level, provides appropriate oversight. That is essential. To go back to the answer that I gave to Willie Rennie on the subject initially, we are taking a little bit of time to consider the best way to proceed on the matter and will write to the committee once we have reached that point.

If I may, convener, I will take a moment to outline our approach to the Withers review. It is certainly radical. I welcome it, not least because it takes a look at the whole skills landscape, whereas previous reviews looked at bits and pieces of it. It is incredibly useful. I was going to say that it is the start of a discussion, but it is not, because we are going to make changes.

Although we warmly welcome the broad direction of travel that Withers sets, there are 15 clear recommendations, five of which are structural. Significant implications for individuals as well as organisations arise from those recommendations and I feel that it is appropriate for us to take a small amount of time to interrogate those implications. There might be a slightly different way of taking forward that work. We might want to go further. There might be some things that, for a variety of reasons that emerge, are not the right thing to do. In a general sense, however, Withers points to the way forward. It is a terrific report.

What time will we take to reflect on that? We have already spoken to all the major stakeholders and we have asked them to take a bit of time—six to eight weeks—to reflect in detail on how the Withers report impacts on them directly and in a broader sense, because they might spot areas in which they can contribute. I had a meeting with the Royal Society of Edinburgh yesterday. It has a good overview of the sector, so it would be useful to hear what it is thinking. I encourage the other stakeholders to do that reflection.

At the conclusion of that rough period of time, we will engage directly with stakeholders to get their thoughts on how we can implement the recommendations and what we ought to do. I have to say that the response to Withers has already been positive. I am conscious that some would have us simply go and do it now, but we need to take a bit of time to talk to our trade union colleagues and others, and we are thinking it all through in great detail.

Although we are working to a rough timetable, I would hope and expect to come back to Parliament soon after the recess, to make a statement, if that is what Parliament wishes, or whatever. Perhaps I would come back to the committee and update members on our thinking that way.

I would also say—and I mean this genuinely—that I know that a number of members of the committee—Stephen Kerr is a case in point—have taken a great deal of interest in the principles of reform of the sector, so my door is open to anyone who wants to talk to me about their thinking on this. We have a fantastic opportunity to make much-needed change and to get it right.

It is therefore important that we interrogate the review, look at whether any unintended consequences would flow from anything that James Withers has recommended and then get on with addressing the reform agenda.

I would anticipate that the Government will be at the forefront of funding this.

We have already said that, and I have already told you what we are going to do.

You are asking what additional pressure there will be. We estimate the numbers to be somewhere between 36 and 76. To put that in perspective, we are looking at pressure of somewhere between 0.03 and 0.06 per cent.

It is impossible to answer that, but we are always reviewing how we provide support. There are on-going processes that will follow from the regulations, so we will continue to look at the situation. Clearly, if there was a substantial increase, that would have to be taken on board.

Thank you for the opportunity to address you today regarding the amending regulations that are before you.

As I set out in my letter of 31 May, following a judicial review last year, the Court of Session declared that the long residence provisions in our education fees and student support regulations were unlawful.

Those provisions were originally brought in following a judicial review of the position in England by the United Kingdom Supreme Court, and with a view to providing students who had not been born in the United Kingdom and who did not have indefinite leave to remain, with the opportunity to access financial support when proceeding into further and higher education. Although the lengthy timescales associated with the long residence provisions drew criticism from the court, the position of offering full support to those who live in Scotland and regard it as their home, and who are therefore more likely to stay here after their studies and contribute to society, is a sound one.

At the conclusion of the judicial review proceedings, ministers committed to introducing amending regulations for the start of the 2023-24 academic year, to ensure that students who had made Scotland their home, or who resided in the country and wished to study in further or higher education, had parity of access to support with their school peers.

The Scottish Government launched a public consultation on the proposals in January 2023 and undertook stakeholder engagement, all of which helped to shape the proposals that are before the committee today.

The proposals expand the pool of students from a range of immigration statuses who can now be deemed as being Scotland-domiciled. That means that, for the purposes of being assessed for a home fee place with access to tuition fees and, in some instances, access to student bursaries and/or loans, all students—other than those from exempted groups—must now meet the same length of residence in the UK, which is three years, to access that support. That sets all potential students who have a lawful basis for residing in the UK or Scotland and who wish to proceed into further and higher education on a level footing with their school peers—bar some noted exceptions.

If the amending regulations were to be annulled, the substantive regulations would revert to our previous position on long residence, which would undoubtedly cause deep upset for many members of our communities who have made Scotland their home and wish to pursue further and higher education but would no longer be able to do so.

I look forward to discussing the regulations further and have my two most well-versed officials with me to assist with proceedings.

That is not captured by the regulations.

I will bring in Magdalene Boyd to answer that question.

No, because we have SAAS as a fallback.