Seòmar agus comataidhean

No, I am not concerned about that. I recognise that the timing is not good, and neither is the loss of the £46 million—although I should say, for context, that the loss of £20 million from the universities budget is a very small proportion of it. I am not downplaying that—I just wanted to provide some context, and I will come back to Sally Mapstone’s comments in a moment. I will just say that, from the discussions that I have had with the colleges, in particular, I think that we can do enough in the short term to stabilise the situation, which will allow us to kick on with what we—and they—need and want to do.

As for the universities, I have a great deal of respect for Sally Mapstone, but the facts do not bear out her comments about managed decline. If you look at the performance of the universities—and I can go through that information if you wish—you will see that this is a sector that, despite the challenges, is vibrant, with a fantastic enthusiasm about it. The loss of the additional funding was a blow, but I think that, for the universities, the concern was more about the message behind that than the hard cash. They felt that we had somehow deprioritised them, when nothing could be further from the truth. However, I have taken the message on board, and we have been having a lot of discussions with universities about how we deal with this.

They are, indeed, but, as I have said on a number of occasions, if you want more money for universities, it will have to come from somewhere else. It is just a fact—that is where we are.

I have been speaking to individual university principals in recent days, and I think—I certainly hope—that there is an understanding that we value our universities. Two weeks ago, I hosted an event with the German education secretary and a number of our universities, and I think that that alone sends a message about the value that we place on their role as we move forward.

I get the contradiction that you have alluded to between that and the financial side of things, but I absolutely assure you that, like our colleges, our universities will be front and centre of what we are doing.

As the then cabinet secretary indicated to you at the time, that will have to be worked through the education budget as a whole, which is what is happening.

I am glad to hear that you will follow Sir Peter’s lead by taking a calm and rational approach, Mr Kerr.

It is, indeed, a lot of money, Mr Kerr, and you will recall that all parties called for efforts to get that dispute settled. That is what we did. It was welcomed, and you will appreciate that, in the context of the education budget, the current education secretary is having to make some tough decisions.

Yes. Perhaps it would be useful if I were to explain that the initial money was there to support what was termed “strategic change”. There were initial conversations taking place between the SFC and both sectors. Some areas that were being considered were: supporting institutional transformational planning; helping institutions to collaborate to deliver their provision; a national colleges estates assessment; and the development of a student record system. Those were some of the things that were under discussion and that was what the money was being directed towards; it was not simply a way of providing extra funds for the sake of it—it had a specific purpose.

If Barnett consequentials, as you have put it, were to appear or if the financial situation were to improve, I would say that colleges would be a priority for us. As we move forward, colleges will be at the very heart of what we are going to be doing. I entirely recognise the challenges that colleges are being presented with beyond the £26 million and, from my perspective, they would be a priority if and when an opportunity arose to support them better.

I am not aware of any colleges or universities that require specific assistance. It is important to recognise that these moneys were for transition purposes and not part of the core teaching funding settlement.

I am reluctant to get into some of the specifics of what we discussed with the colleges and universities, out of courtesy to them. However, there is a joint recognition of some the challenges that they face and, particularly in the case of colleges, there is a commitment to work together to try to find the additional flexibilities that colleges might want, as discussed in the committee report. Conversations are going on in that space. I am sure that the committee will wish to explore that further.

I would describe the discussions with colleges—notwithstanding the understandable upset that they had—as very constructive. I am confident that we can move forward from here and find a positive way forward. Our conversations with Universities Scotland have been more initial, but the cabinet secretary and I intend to build on those by engaging directly with the principals and chairs in what we hope will be a single gathering.

It is a fact. If we, collectively as a Parliament, welcome that, we have to recognise that if we spend money in that area, there will not be money for something else. That is the reality of Government. I am afraid that we cannot simply say that there is more money for this and more money for that, whether it be for education or something else, without consequences. Unfortunately, these are the consequences.

There is a future pressure there.