 Excellent. Thank you very much. Good morning and welcome to the twentieth meeting of the education children and young people in 2023. I have received apologies from Ross Greer and Stephen Kerr and I would like to welcome Meghan Galhau, who is joining us this morning as a substitute member of the committee. Good morning, Meghan. The first item on our agenda today is an evidence session on the Scottish Education exchange programme and further higher education issues. I welcome Graham Day, the Minister for Higher and Further Education and the Minister for Veterans. Alongside the minister today, we have Susan Pryde, the team lead for HE International, Shazia Rizek, strategic lead for university policy governance and equalities, Jess Dolan, head of colleges and economic impact and finally Jane Duffy, unit head for lifetime skills and apprenticeships. Thank you all for joining us today and I can invite the minister to open up with a short five-minute statement please. Morning convener and thank you. I want to thank you for initially inviting me to come before the committee today to discuss plans for an education exchange programme as a replacement for Erasmus Plus and also can I express my appreciation of your understanding the other week when I had to be in Liverpool in government business. I am aware that members will want to expand their questioning into other areas of my portfolio, including university funding and college governance. Hence the reason I have this team of officials with me today to assist in providing the answers members will be looking for. Before we get into those items, I want to make some initial points around our commitment to develop an exchange programme. Scotland is an opening inclusive country in which we welcome and benefit from students who come to study in some of our many first class further and higher education institutions in equal awareness, residing in Scotland benefit from international study exchanges in many ways. In 2021-22 we welcomed a record number of 82,000 international students through a range of programmes, including scholarships. I am grateful to the work of our colleges, universities and international offices in continuing to ensure Scotland's global presence and reputation as a place to learn, study, develop and work. Erasmus has been an integral part of our international exchange offer for many years. The last round of Erasmus Plus funding, which was between 2014 and 2020, awarded over 141 million euros to an excess of 1,000 Scottish projects. That enabled over 2,200 university students and 200 higher education staff from Scotland to participate in Erasmus Plus annually. Proportionately, more students from Scotland took part in Erasmus than any other country in the UK, and more students came to Scotland than any other part of the UK, a testament to our institutions. As the committee is all too aware, the UK Government's decision not to associate with Erasmus Plus after leaving the EU prevents Scotland from participating fully in its own right. In May, youth link Scotland shared with the committee evidence of the positive impact that the Erasmus Plus programme had on the lives of our young people and professionals who support them. As youth link revealed, research has shown that the young people who engage with our youth work sector gain the most from these experiences and that it is transformative and life changing for them. Those programmes remove barriers and provide opportunities for more positive future paths for our young people. I am sure that the committee will agree with me when I say again that it is with deep frustration that it acknowledges the negative impact on the young people of Scotland from the UK Government's decision to withdraw from Erasmus Plus. In 2021, the UK Government launched a touring scheme as a replacement for Erasmus Plus, and I am pleased that Scottish institutions have secured £17.6 million in the first two years of touring. Unfortunately, touring does not match the breadth and scope of Erasmus Plus, as it offers no provision for students to come to the UK or for staff exchanges. The Scottish Government will continue to engage with the UK Government to try and make touring better reflect the needs of Scotland. While remaining committed to the Erasmus Plus programme and working with the UK Government to address the shortfalls in the touring scheme, the Scottish Government pledged to create a Scottish education exchange programme that would support people from across our education system. My officials have been engaging with universities and other partners from across the education system to identify opportunities for collaboration on a Scottish programme that will not only seek to address shortfalls in the touring scheme, but will promote Scotland as an outward-looking country, internationally connected and a positive destination for work and study. However, I am keen, not least of all, to view the immensely challenging financial climate that we get the best return for the students and staff involved from the investment that we make. With that in mind, I undertook during a meeting with University of Scotland yesterday to engage directly with that sector. I will also be looking for input from other sectors to shape the final proposals. We recognise the key role exchange programmes play and support my priorities, and it is with that in mind that I will commit to update the committee following on from that engagement on the timetable for delivery of the commitment. Finally, convener, let me thank the committee for this opportunity to come to you today and share that and answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much minister and on time as well. I appreciate that. Can I move to questions from members and, first up, is Willie Rennie, please? Thank you for that opening statement. Why are we way behind Wales on this? Why have they got their scheme up and running and we are still discussing ours? I can't speak for what Wales are doing and you'll hopefully appreciate Mr Rennie, I've only been in post for 12 weeks. What I would say about where we are currently and what we need to do is that there's a number of things that I think we need to look at to get that right. For example, I'd like to assess the allocations around Turing that were made to Scottish institutions in 2022-23 to help to determine what the gaps actually are. What is it that gets awarded, funded and what isn't and why? That will help us to understand what we would need to look to plug. As you know, there's no inward mobility element to it, no inward and outward mobility for staff and, of course, there's no youth element either. We know that but we need to understand the basis in which Turing awards and we are waiting shortly to see what the awards will be for 2023-24, which we will also inform our thinking. In terms of where we are currently, we are actively engaged on this. What I would anticipate us doing in the next short while is to launch a pilot project in conjunction with the sectors that I have mentioned and then take it from there. That would be my intention at the moment. Can you give us a bit more detail about when the pilot project would start? You appreciate having just started those conversations with University of Scotland, so I can't do that. However, I would anticipate it being in this financial year. You are new in post, but there has been a higher education minister and further education minister before and it has taken a long time just to get to this stage. I have been given numerous excuses by various ministers over the time, including the free movement of people. I have tried to establish whether that is a real problem and I cannot find any evidence that there is an issue about free movement of people. Have you managed to find anything? There has been extensive engagement on that. We believe that the scheme would be covered by a six-month study visa, so that would take account of a term. We believe that it will be okay, but we still await final confirmation on that. Are you going to fund the scheme or are you expecting further higher education institutions to pay for that? We will take forward the pilot project at the moment, in conjunction with those institutions. I recognise the financial challenges that they face, just as I recognise the ones that the Government faces as well. Okay, that is not quite your pay for it. This is an SNP manifesto commitment. I would have thought that you would have funded it for central funders. I would anticipate that the Government would be the forefront of funding this. Is that you? Pam Duncan-Clancy, please. Thank you, minister, for your opening statement and for joining us this morning. It is appreciated. I am still really struggling to understand why we are in a situation where 6,000 students in Wales have participated in an exchange programme across 95 countries, and the Scottish Government is still only piloting a project that might not even start to the end of this financial year. As you are well aware, Mr Duncan-Clancy, one of the significant challenges for the Government currently and previously has been budget. We have faced enormous budget challenges, and that has been a factor in, as Mr Rennie would put it, holding up the development of this. There is no doubt about that, but that does not mean that we are not going to fulfil this commitment. Presumably, the Welsh Government made different budgetary choices then, so why did the Scottish Government not choose to fund its manifesto commitment on this? With respect, Mr Duncan-Clancy, one of the joys of being an opposition member in this Parliament is that you can call you and other opposition members for funding for all sorts without actually having to determine where it comes from. You talk about funding choices, but a number of the funding commitments that this Government has made, I have not heard opposition members criticising. With respect, it is not for the opposition to tell the Government how to fund their own manifesto. No, but it is for the opposition to show a sense of responsibility around what they call for. I would contend with respect. However, the opposition in this situation is calling for exactly the same thing that the Government did. I feel that we could go round in circles on that particular question, so I will move on. In terms of the conversation that you had with University Scotland and the pilot project, you said that you are looking to find what the gaps in Turing are and look particularly at youth work. We heard extensive evidence last week of the gaps in Turing and the value of youth work. Do you not have enough information just to start this? I did not share with the University of yesterday the specifics of the pilot project that we are meeting next week, so the committee is the first to hear about that. We do have quite a lot of information on the youth side of it, absolutely, but I want to understand fully what the gaps are in their entirety in Turing, because I am sure that, and rightly so, if we were to design a scheme and further down the line, there were found to be unintended consequences or shortcomings. Members of Parliament, this committee, would rightly hold the Government to account. I want to be sure that what we are doing meets the needs insofar as that is achievable of the young people and the staff and their support workers who will be caught up in that. If the Government is not really intent on finding out what the issues are, I am afraid that I cannot understand what is taking the length of time. Is the Government just waiting to say that we want full erasmus plus after independence, or are you going to genuinely try to do something before? We have already said that and I have already told you what we are going to do. We have already been very clear that we would fully align with erasmus post independence. What I am saying to you is that we have a plan to ensure that the pilot project is here to get us up and running, and that is what we are going to do. We are a pilot to inform the development of the replacement. Bob Doris wants a supplementary on this thread, if that is possible. I will come back in later on the budget of it, but just specifically on the pilot. Minister, you mentioned that you have spoken to universities recently yesterday about this. There are three moving parts to this. There are universities, colleges and the youth sector. We are talking about a pilot and the Government has got a commitment to widening access and targeting resources that those most in need at least likely to get that overseas in foreign travel. Can we anticipate that having spoken to universities that it will not necessarily be university led, it could be college led, it could be youth sector led and it could be targeted at those least likely to be mobile in travelling Europe in the first place? Will this be a targeted pilot at those most in need? It will certainly take account of those most in need. To be clear, the conversation with the universities happened yesterday because we were meeting them. I met the youth sector just quite recently, and we will follow up on that. On that, we take care of the fact that those who do not go to college or university are least likely to undertake overseas travel. Those who go to university are the most likely, and those who are in colleges are somewhere in the middle. Will that be taken account of in any pilot? I am acutely aware of the evidence that the committee took. I think that Pam Duncan-Glassy was lying at the question at that session, and I was quite taken by that. We are not looking to ultimately have a project that excludes people. That is not what we are looking to do. We are trying to capture everyone who ought to be captured. Thank you for those responses. Can we move to questions from Ruth Maguire now, please? Thank you. I think that I probably want to echo colleague's sentiments there in times where resources are stretched. It would feel inappropriate if those who were furthest away from getting opportunities missed out, so it is good to hear that the minister will be engaging with the youth work and colleges sector. On the current Turing scheme, youth work is an obvious gap there. You mentioned that you will engage with the UK Government. What scope do you see for improvement or changes to be made to Turing that Scottish young people can take advantage of? We can all see the scope for improvement. I will bring my officials in on that in detail because they have been involved. I will come in and answer a bit of that. The Turing scheme is ultimately focused at the disadvantaged levels of funding where it goes. It expects about at least 50 per cent of the funding that it provides to go to those areas. Just to say that there are some projects that are not just focused on higher and further education that do have exchanges that are related to youth sectors, not specifically the kind of youth sector in the way that we have spoken about it, but things like through schools, through associations, clubs, so there are successful projects that have been awarded money through Turing to that. Can I ask what level of engagement the Scottish Government is having with the UK Government about the Turing scheme? We basically meet on about a monthly basis in relation to Turing, and that is all parts of the UK, not just Scotland as a devolved administration. Also recently, their provider, Capita, has introduced a couple of boards to get feedback, so they have one for universities and one for colleges. I think that they have for schools as well, but I am not totally versed in that. However, we do have University of Scotland and College of Scotland on those boards, so they are providing direct input of any concerns, any problems that are coming up through arising through the Turing funding and how it could be improved and made better. We are making sure that that is directly fed in to the planning for future Turing rounds. We certainly heard a lot of really positive stuff around teeth and evidence, and the youth work that we are seeing is what hits all their key asks. Are you looking at that as being a possible blueprint? Or what do you see as being the key lessons around that? We have engaged a lot with our TIE colleagues specifically, our Tate College, as they were setting up the programme. We meet Welsh Government officials on a monthly basis, and we have been keeping up on the allocations and how they have been doing that, how their applications assessment procedures have been working. We are absolutely looking at that, as well as learning lessons from Turing and looking at the application assessment procedures and what would be appropriate for Scotland, and how we can make sure that we make that work appropriately for Scotland. What is that influence on the pilot work that you are looking at just now? I think that, ultimately, yes, it will, but I think that the first step for any pilot is to have a good discussion with the stakeholders and to lay out some of that thinking and plans with them. Obviously, they will not have experienced teeth, but they have experienced Turing, and we know what their views on how that process works, what works well and what does not work so well. We will bring all of that into discussion when we start the discussion on the pilot with stakeholders to look at what would work best for Scotland and how we could look at especially key principles of how we tackle disadvantage, how we look at key Scottish Government priority areas and how those exchanges happen and what kind of areas they happen in. Are you able to say any more at this point on who and how you are intending to engage in with your youth work specifically? We have had regular meetings. We talked about some meetings being paused up until February this year. We have been having a monthly meeting with YouthLink Scotland, so we have a strong working relationship with them, so I do not see any problem in involving them in discussing a pilot programme. So the focus will remain in YouthLink Scotland? Yes. I have a question from Megan Gallher now, please. Thank you, convener, and it is to pick up on the youth work aspect because Liz Greene, when she was here at committee and I was present at that meeting, said that progress had stalled last summer, last autumn time, and that regular meetings with the Government had stopped in roughly January-Febru. I appreciate that you are new and post-minister, but do you know why those meetings stopped? If you are looking to have a youth element that I do believe is important, you need to be having regular meetings with stakeholders. I think that much of the groundwork had already been done in that regard, in determining what it was that they were looking for and what they felt was required. To be absolutely clear, one of the reasons, perhaps one of the most significant reasons, why that has not progressed at a pace that we would all have wanted to, is budget. That has been an issue. You are all aware of the significant budgetary challenges that the Governments face in the education portfolio, and that has been a factor in the pace at which that has progressed. I can take your point on that, but that comes down to choices, minister, in all Governments do make choices. However, given the budgetary concerns that you have voiced this morning, I would have been brought to Cabinet to be discussed at a higher level. My understanding is that the student exchange programme has not been brought to the Scottish Government Cabinet. Please correct me if I am wrong there, but there does not seem to be a consistent thread of reporting on the student exchange programme. Why that is not the case and why there has not been progress reports provided? Again, that is an important element of the implementation of the programme, to ensure that people are updated on the progress that the Government is making. I am not aware of what has not been discussed at Cabinet in World Days and provided recognising that I have been 12 weeks in post. What I can say is that there is a PFG commitment that has been made. There was no timeline to the PFG commitment, but the commitment is made and we intend to take that forward. I have been as open as I can be with the committee this morning about where we are at and how we are going to try and progress us in the short term. Do you think that, with the pilot being launched this year, the Government will be able to fully have that implemented by its initial date of September 2025? I am not aware that there was a firm timeline set in place. It was a PFG commitment. What I would say to you is that we would, as I said this financial year, we would like to get the pilot up and running. I would like to get it up and running quite quickly, but we want to get it right. I am hoping that that can inform some reasonably rapid progression from that point on. If I recall rightly what we said was that it would be done within this Parliament, we would all like to get it done as early in the Parliament as possible, and that is what we are trying to do just now, to put some momentum into that. Bob Doris, do you want to come in on this thread? On the budget tree? Yes. Since he ends if that is okay. I think that it is reasonable to assert that the financial position of the Scottish Government is dramatically eroded since the manifesto commitments were made be that due to inflation, cost pressures within education and UK Government austerity. That is a strong argument for yourself as Minister. However, the committee still has to scrutinise the potential budget lines irrespective of all that. The Welsh scheme is £65 million over four years, that is £16.25 million per annum, as a fully rolled out scheme. Is there any indicative figures whether the Government pays it all or in part for the pilot that the Government can share with us at the moment? It is difficult to share figures with Mr Doris at this stage because of the forms that the scheme could take, but I will undertake to provide as much information to the committee as we move forward and to return to it on the subject that we so wish. That would be helpful as soon as possible to get an idea of those figures. We get figures that can move and change and projections that can change, but the early sight of figures would be helpful for this committee, because this committee will also have to make choices, convener, because of all the other cost pressures and demands that this committee makes. If the Scottish Government was to come forward and say, we have found £25 million per annum to run this scheme, committee members would not have to decide if that is the best spend of £25 million within the sector, given the cuts to colleges in particular and other cost pressures that exist. The committee has moved parts to compete with in relation to budget concerns. Are you sensitive, minister, that any spend on this manifesto commitment might have an impact on other commitments that we are making within the education portfolio and how would you manage that conflict? Of course, you are conscious of where funding has to be found from. That has made up my last 12 weeks with some of the challenges that have gone with that. On occasion, Mr Doris, there can be budgetary pressures that arise. The teachers' pay settlement was a very significant pressure, but I see that as a priority now. We need to get on and do something with it, and that is what I intend to do. Will this be wholly funded within the education portfolio, or will any money external within the Government be deployed to help to meet those ambitions? I am not clear on that at the moment. Can we bring in the vice convener, Ben Macpherson now, please? Thanks, convener. Good morning, minister, and to your officials. Just a quick question going back to engagement. It was really good to hear about the regular engagement with the Welsh Government, because the officials working on the Tath programme had said that there hadn't been some engagement for some time. It was my anticipation that, while there had not been engagement with those specific officials in the Welsh Government, that there would be regular engagement with yourselves and other members of the Welsh Government. It was great to hear that clarity from you. Indeed, it was also helpful to hear about the engagement with the UK Government on Turing and what can be learned and considered in that regard. Given that the Scottish Government has such high esteem and respect in Brussels and Scotland's position on the European question is so strong, I presume that there is also good engagement with relevant persons and authorities, not just from the Scottish Government but from our institutions, with partners in Brussels that can be utilised to come up with the best scheme possible. Well, not just Brussels. One of the strengths of our universities is the international contacts they have and the respect in which they are held. That is one of the reasons why I want to utilise what they can bring to the table to develop this in the best possible way. I should say as well, going back to the point that Willie Rennie made about my predecessor, when there is a change of minister, very often those ministers want to look very closely at what is on their desk. That may well have held us up a little bit as well, because I want to be absolutely clear on the best approach that we should take to this. We are not quite there yet, but I want to take that a little bit more time to be convinced about what is the best way to go here, and that includes those conversations with the universities, the colleges and the youth sector. We get that right. I welcome that. I welcome the fact that you have put new energy into this and have made a commitment on the pilot. I think that that is good news. The scale of the pilot, however, is important, because Bob Doris has already talked about making sure that youth work is included in it. If we are going to learn enough from the pilot, we will need to include all the sectors. It can be guaranteed that all the sectors will be included. My second question is, in Wales, the system is run by Cardiff University. Are you proposing to commission some other organisation to run the pilot and the eventual scheme in the long run? In answer to the first question, yes. In answer to the second question, that has not been decided. Not often we get yes answers from ministers. We are going to move on to other topics so that you can brace yourselves there. You mentioned, on numerous occasions, that you met with the universities yesterday, so I was wondering if there was any discussion that took place regarding the on-going boycott of marking across some of the universities and what that discussion might have looked like. That was obviously in the confines of a private meeting, but yes, that subject was there. Can the minister comment on perhaps his opinion of the on-going boycott and how that may impact on the students who are sitting without confirmed results for their degrees? I can talk to the conversations that I have had and perhaps officials can add to that. I have certainly spoken to, I met at UCU, the universities last week, where the discussion about the circumstances is surrounding this. I had a fuller discussion with the universities yesterday. I think that it is a regrettable situation that we find ourselves in and the impact that is having on students. I think that in the university sector it is indicative of a very strained relationship that exists between the trade unions and management. I have urged management Scotland to seek to have UCA get back around the table with the trade unions to try to make progress in resolving that, because that is the only way that we are going to get this sorted out. Individual universities have taken different approaches as to how they address the impacts of the marking boycott and the impacts are varied depending on the institutions. It is not an entirely satisfactory situation that we find ourselves, not at all, but will you get this resolved? Have you spoken to any students, minister, regarding how they are feeling about this at all? I have had limited conversations with students. We are meeting the national union students next week, I think, as a body. I know that there were some quite animated discussions on various radio programmes yesterday, when you were hearing about the frustrations that they were feeling. I move now to questions from Pam Duncan-Clancy. Are you ready? You can. Thank you for that. What feedback have you had from college principles following the letter that you sent to them about their responsibilities on fair work? Directly, I had a couple of college principles that got in touch with me to offer reassurance about the approach that they took. Indirectly, through Colleges Scotland, I have had some more reassurances that the overwhelming majority of colleges are seeking to take the appropriate approach, which is reassuring, but I recognise also the concerns that are being expressed by the trade unions. What would you suggest that we say to our constituents who are losing their jobs as a result of redundancies? I think that we had this conversation a few weeks ago in this very room. I think that redundancies are deeply regrettable, but we are in a very, very challenging financial position. As I said to you a few weeks ago, the work that is going on directly with the colleges, which will be ramped up next week, is to try to find things that we can do to stabilise the colleges. That will not address the problem immediately with our direct respective problem that they are dealing with, but we will hopefully get them on a sounder financial footing and have the stability that we need them to have for going forward. Do you accept that the cut for funding this year—the £46 million and the £26 million for colleges—could have impacted on that? Some colleges, for example, have said that they may have been able to use that for a voluntary severance scheme as opposed to move to compulsory. They would not have been able to use it for a voluntary severance scheme. I think that I said that previously. The flat cash settlement is their core funding. The £26 million was for transition projects, which were still under discussion. The nature and the type of those were under discussion with the funding council. They would not have been able to use those for voluntary severance schemes. We did get four different answers about what that money was for, so I do not think that that was particularly clear. What kind of engagement have you had with colleges around the impact of the redundancies? Who is losing their jobs? Are they lecturers, for example, who are working in additional support? Are they on courses that we need in areas that we need skills in Scotland? Have you had any engagement whatsoever with colleges on that? As a minister, I would not directly engage in operational matters, but from the conversations that I have had, where I have been visiting colleges and other meetings with college principals, the principles have, as I understand it, sought to protect the courses that are absolutely required to be protected. Those include the type of courses that you have highlighted. I specifically asked principles around that point. They have been very clear with me now. You may have examples that I would be interested in if that has not been the case. For the most part, as far as I am aware, colleges and their principles have sought to protect those courses, but, if you have evidence to the contrary, I am happy to hear that. I have some evidence from Glasgow specifically, which I may follow up separately, but there are significant reductions in the City of Glasgow College in the additional support needs area. That would be helpful to follow up separately. What support can you offer staff who are facing redundancies at this time? If they are going to lose their job, what more can the Government do to support them? Would you like to give an example of what the Government should be doing? I could. The Government should have properly funded the sector over the past 10 years so that it can afford to employ the staff that it needs. It needs to look at flexibilities, but it is not my job to answer that question. Ultimately, there are people, particularly in Glasgow, but I will not focus on it, but across the sector, who are facing job losses at a time when we really need colleges the most. We need skills in our economy. We need colleges to be the engine rooms in our local communities of learning skills and development and supporting people from poorer backgrounds specifically. At this moment in time, those institutions are laying people off. To pick up on your point, there has been additional money going into colleges over the last few years. I recognise the financial challenges that they still face. If your point is what you should have put more money into colleges, I guess my challenge to you is, Mr Duncan, to go and say it from where. I do not think that anyone in the committee would have been calling for us not to put more money into tackling the attainment challenge, not to sell the teachers pay dispute and various other things, which are rightly priorities. I am afraid that, sadly and regrettably, in the context of the colleges right now, they face a situation where they are having to make redundancies. I hope that they are minimised while we look, because you are absolutely right about the future. The colleges will be front and centre on what we are going to be doing, so we need to try to stabilise them now and get them into a better position for what lies ahead. However, we are in a difficult financial position at the moment—very difficult. I appreciate that, but I do not think that we can continue to get into this back-and-forth where you expect all-position members to do the much better. This is a back-and-forth as well, Ms Duncan Glancy. We have had this already. Can we move to a question? It is, and I am. Thank you, convener. The point that I am trying to make is that there are people who are going to lose their jobs in a sector that the Government has said is important. Have they come too late to negotiations? Did you use all the money up before it came to colleges? There was an additional pressure, as the committee is aware, that arose as the consequence of sitting and settling the teachers pay dispute. That money had to be found from within the education budget. That is the nature of Government. Do you think that it is acceptable to put educators against educators in that sector? We have put this exchange previously in the chamber. The simple fact is that, if the money is not there or it cannot be magicked up, I absolutely regret the pressures that the colleges are under and the redundancies that are having to be made, but I am afraid that is the reality of the situation. I have one final question. Thank you. Can we move to questions now from Bob Doris? Minister, I do not expect to comment on City of Glasgow College, but I want to use it briefly as a case study for corporate governance. We know that EIS Fela had plans to mitigate the 100 compulsory redundancies that are looming in Glasgow. EIS Fela tells us that the principle described those plans as nebulous and superficial and rejected by the board on 14 June. EIS Fela would say that the 18 different papers that have been taken forward for those with 100 redundancies have errors and inconsistencies. We know that scoring exercises have started to deem who might be made compulsory redundant with redundancies potentially as early as 28 June, and we know that unions asked for that process to be delayed. That is where we are with the City of Glasgow College. What reassurance can MSPs in Glasgow have—indeed, MSPs elsewhere in the country, with their local colleges—that when boards consider proposals from unions or anyone else, they do so fairly, robustly, in detail and prudently? How can we make sure that is happening without casting any aspersions to anyone, because if we have unions saying that they have not been considered appropriately and robustly, how can we reassure unions that they have been, or what checks and balances exist that MSPs can reassure themselves that things are not going awry within the college sector and in corporate governance in particular? I do not want to get into the specifics of one particular example, but I think that you raised a good point about the robust nature of oversight in any locality with college boards and the role of the SFC. I can stop making this comment, but I have been in post 12 weeks. I am still getting my head around some of the nature of the processes that are followed. As I understand it, the SFC has given an assurance that due process was followed in that particular example. What I am alive to at that institution is the very fractious nature of industrial relations that see a claim and counter claim made. As politicians as the Government, we have to deal in fact. I think that it is something that I am taking a keen interest in, in terms of the form that it takes. Can you say any more about that minister? I am keen to move away from the City of Glasgow College. I am sure that constituents will be listening very carefully to exchange on the City of Glasgow College, but there are colleges across the country. I have no doubt that some are performing very well. They have close relationships with their union colleagues, but not so much in others. I am sure that some will have robust challenges of college principles, others perhaps not so much. How do we get that consistency of approach to scrutiny? If this was housing associations minister and there were issues, then there is the ability to appoint individuals to boards to support that oversight, for example. I will bring Jess in a minute on the detail of some of that. To answer the specific point, there is one issue that has come across by desk in the last few weeks, and there are no doubt good reasons for that. However, if a college is conducting a process of voluntary severance, that has to be run past the funding council, but not if it is conducting an exercise in compulsory redundancy. I think that that is a little bit anomalous in terms of the very point that you are making about that oversight of processes, and it is something that I am keen to have a look at. Please, Mr Doris, would it be best practice for colleges going for compulsory redundancies if they do not have to run it past the funding council anyway? It is not necessary at the moment, but I can understand why that is not happening. I have to look to what we might do in the future to ensure that, as I say, I saw your reaction to my point at that anomaly. I think that you get where I am coming from. I think that there is something in there that we need to look at. There is nothing to prevent colleges going to the funding council asking to check it over anyway, even though they do not have a legal duty to do so, and that might be the best practice. There would be nothing to stop them. I just want to follow up on the evolution of the no compulsory redundancy policy. We discussed it last week in the chamber. Mike Russell, when he was education secretary, said that this party believes that there is no place for compulsory redundancies in Scotland's colleges. Subsequent to that, colleges got closer to government, but have been excluded from the no compulsory redundancy policy. Can you explain the rationale for that? Not specifically, because it very much predates my time in post. They are required to pay heed to public sector policy, but they are not bound by it. That is the nature of the structures that they have. I would have hoped that you would have had an understanding as to why it has changed. Because it has changed, but it has always been that way. I think that the quote that you said was that the cabinet secretary at that point believed that there was no place for that. He was not bound by it as my understanding. Yes, but at that point they were further away from government, but then the ONS reclassification brought them closer to government. There is an opportunity, but a specific decision was taken to separate them from bodies such as the Cairngorm national park, the Crofting Commission, the Risk Management Authority, the Scottish Canals. All those who are bound by the policy are public sector bodies. Colleges are also public sector bodies, but a decision was taken to allow compulsory redundancies to take place. Surely we must have an understanding as to why that happened. Is there NDPBs with boards? But there are still public sector bodies. A decision could have been taken to include them in the public sector pay policy, which was no compulsory redundancies. I do not want to duck your question. It long predates my involvement in this at all. I do think that that is unsatisfactory. I would hope that you could maybe write to us later on and just give an explanation for that. I am sure that you will not be surprised that I am interested in the Lanarkshire Colleges. The current governance arrangements are not ideal and distract both the Lanarkshire Colleges from their main focus around students and economic recovery. In the reference to make the governance work just now with RSBs, it is time-consuming for the board and the executive, and it is unlikely to change outcomes for students and for communities. I am just wondering if you are able to provide firmer timescales around governance options for Lanarkshire and Glasgow. Around the city of Glasgow, there has obviously been an ask from the three existing colleges that we revisit the GCRB structures. We are currently considering the options around that, but there is a bit of a simplistic view about the process, so I think that there is a view held that we could simply move to this fairly quickly. I think that I answered a question to Parm Duncan-Glancy in the chamber on that. We are currently identifying what the legislative process is to do that. If it were primary legislation, it could take quite some time. If it were to be achievable through secondary legislation, it could still take, because we have to consult on it under the legislation, somewhere between nine to 12 months. There is not an immediate change that could be facilitated. I am aware of what the colleges would wish, and I am aware of Mr Doris's view about how the monies that are caught up in running the GCRB could be better spent. I am also acutely aware of the staff that work for GCRB, and this is a very unsettling time for them when all their speculation is on-going. I am keen that we get to the point where we can indicate what our thinking is around that. However, in all circumstance, it is important that the governance that exists, whether it be at individual college level or regional level, provides appropriate oversight, because I think that that is essential. So, again, back to the answer that I made to earlier, any of the outset on the initial subject, we are doing a lot of time just now to consider the best way to proceed on this, and absolutely we will write to the committee once we reach that point. Okay, and Megan Gallagher on this topic, please. Thank you, convener. If I could continue with the budgetary issues theme and the impact that this is having on our college states, and like Bob Doris, I would like to use new college Lanarkshire as a case study, because in the Motherwell campus we have seen the halls of residency clothes, and in the Cumbernauld and Coatbridge campuses we have seen the nursery clothes as well. It is not just impacting the hard-working staff within those facilities, it is also impacting our learners, whether that be rural people or rural people, who are looking to study in more urban areas, or students with young children. In one example, and I referenced this during the debate last week, a young person from Argyll, who is now no longer able to go to college because of the situation that they find themselves in with the Motherwell campus and the student accommodation closing. I think that we are now moving beyond the deeply regrettable stage. I think that we are now moving into the direct consequence that budgetary issues are now facing with our young people in particular. What support the Government is offering to students who find themselves in those circumstances? Is the Government perhaps saying to rural young people that you cannot go to college in those circumstances because of those budgetary cuts? That is not what we are saying at all. Considerable support is provided to a number of rural-based colleges across the country. The United Nations, the Borders, will be two examples of that to ensure that our young people residing in rural settings are able to access colleges on their doorstep as close as possible. There is great opportunity to use technology to improve the offering that is available remotely at a number of these settings, so that it is enhanced. In the context in your college, Lanarkshire, and the specific examples that you have given, it is not for ministers. Ministers do not have a role in the operational decisions of individual colleges. You raised a whole residence point with me in the chamber last week. I thought that the nursery issue had been paused until December, while they are still looking at that. I do not doubt that there are very difficult decisions that colleges are having to take right now, and there are consequences to those that I recognise. That is why the very detailed dialogue that we are entered into with the colleges is so important. It is a very constructive dialogue, but what can we do to enable colleges to become more sustainable in the short term and in the medium term? That is the spirit in which those discussions are taking place, and they will be ramped up next week when I meet them directly. Thank you for your response, minister. However, are we saying that rural young people need to stay in rural settings? I think that rural young people should have that flexibility that they can move into urban settings, should they wish to learn urban settings. However, as it stands just now, particularly with the case of New College Lanarkshire, we are closing the door on rural young people from being able to enter those premises. However, I understand that it is not the Government's role to tell colleges what to do, but if New College Lanarkshire is facing a £4.3 million cut, it has no option to look at those. I understand, in relation to the nursery issue, that that is not going to be reviewed in December, but what security is that given to people who work in those settings? What security is that given to students who are on courses just now and might need to find alternative childcare at the last moment? I recognise that point. As a member, you have highlighted the need for additional investment in early years and, no doubt, various other things, we have a fixed budget in education and we cannot do everything. However, I want to pick up on what is a very important point that you make about the opportunity for youngsters who might be in the rural settings, or it could be reversed. They deliver an urban setting and want to go to college in a rural setting. One of the things that The Wither's proposals does is to give us the opportunity to look at how we provide college education, because we tend to focus on university students who will travel to different parts of the country to do courses. I think that there is an opportunity through Wither's to perhaps look at that in a college setting. For example, we are going forward to have to put an emphasis on the needs of the economy, but there will be other courses that are essential. It might be that some of our colleges become centres of excellence. If we are going to do that—if we are going to do that because that is a conversation that we have to have—we have to look at how we would support college students to go and attend those particular centres of excellence. You could see rural to urban migration, but we could also see the reverse. There are some really good gamekeeping courses, for example, provided at Borders College. I do not doubt that there will be some urbanites that want to go in those colleges, so we need to look forward to how we deliver that. That is a point that we can agree on, minister, but I hope that you share my concerns. If the shouldn't accommodation is closing, that is directly affecting young people from doing that. Finally, if I may, on the back of the issues surrounding new college Lanarkshire, unison is calling now for a review of college finances and governance. I wonder what the minister's response is to that and whether a fuel review will take place. If what you are referring to is some form of emergency funding package for colleges or the general approach to funding, we are not in a position to provide additional funding to colleges right now. In terms of what future funding looks like going forward, whether it is very clear that there is no shortage of funding in the skills and post-school education landscape, it is very clear about that. It is just how we better utilise that, and that will form part of the discussion that we have around us and taking that and various other things forward. That is a nice segue into questions from Ruth Maguire. Minister, you are loud and clear what you are saying about fixed budgets and the financial constraints that everyone is having to operate under. As well as making choices between funding things or not, it is important that we make sure that our public bodies have all the tools that they need to be able to operate. Operational and financial flexibilities become very important. I know that I have asked you about that a number of times and, convener, I will keep asking about it. Some of the flexibilities that are being provided were outlined by the cabinet secretary in her response to committee to our college regionalisation inquiry report. Can I ask you about how discussions are progressing between the Scottish Government and colleges Scotland? If you can speak to potential shorter-term and longer-term solutions, if that is possible. I also understand that there may be an opportunity for flexibility around resource operation and capital. Anything that you can say to that would be helpful for committee to hear. As I said to the member in the debate the other way, I do not want to be unhelpful. I hope that I come across as wanting to be helpful to the committee, but it is a bit of a difficult situation to sit and talk about discussions that haven't taken place yet. I think that it would be a bit disrespectful to the colleges if I was to talk about some of our thinking. I think that the cabinet secretary outlined when she was in front of the committee when I was a member of it, was about the flexibilities that had been provided and have been welcomed by the colleges, but I recognise that we need to go further in order to support them. The approach that has been taken is that the colleges have been working up a number of thoughts that they have, as have we. We are going to come together next week, not to have a discussion and wonder often come back to this after the recess, but with a view to looking at what is achievable now and in a slightly longer term, because there is no doubt in my mind that we can do more to assist the colleges into a position of stability. One of the areas that you talked about is capital spend. One of the areas that I am keen to explore with them is the possible option about how they might be encouraged or assisted to address some of the issues with the fabric of their buildings and also in doing that to address the net zero challenge. It is not just about resources, it is about what more can we do, because there are some colleges that face significant challenges on to the age and condition of their buildings. There have felt that there have been restrictions on what they can do in that space, which I am hoping that we can find a way to listen and encourage some movement in that area. I am surprised that discussions have not taken place. I thought that that might be me picking up wrong. Of course, there has been dialogue between officials progressing on that, but we are meeting next week to try to get it to progress significantly. I am glad to hear that, because there needs to be a bit of urgency around it, so it is good to hear that we are not at the start. Do you want to say something, Jen? Just to assure you that discussions that have been on-going for some time and the meetings that the ministers are referring to next week are part of an on-going series of conversations that we have been having with College of Scotland and with college principals feeding into those discussions over a significant number of months. It is more an iterative process than it is that we are waiting for a single meeting to take place. I appreciate that. To be clear, the meeting next week is to try to get agreement on that, to get something formally in place. Again, convener, once we are in another position to do that, I would hope that we will be able to write jointly to the committee, to outline what is wrong. I think that that would be really helpful. Yes, because it certainly was someone who came out loud and clear in our reading college's report. We are going to move on to the topics around withers, just so you got yourself, and moving to Bill Kidd to kick us off, please. Thank you very much, convener. Minister, you have stated clearly, and we have all heard you, that the Scottish Government will not shy away from skills reform, following the recommendations of the Wither's review. You have mentioned it a couple of times this morning already. Can you share any further thinking this time on how those recommendations will be enacted? Is there a response in setting out the way forward? When can that be expected? Okay, so if I may take a moment, convener, to outline the approach that we have taken to this. The Wither's review is certainly radical. I welcome it, not least of all, because it takes a look at the whole skills landscape. We have heard reviews previously that have looked at bits and pieces of it. I think that it is incredibly useful. I was going to say that it is not about starting a discussion because we are going to make change. However, although we warmly welcome the broad direction of travel that Wither's sets, there are 15 clear recommendations, five of them structural, and there are significant implications that arise from those, not least of all for individuals as well as organisations. I just feel that it is appropriate that we take a small amount of time to interrogate the implications of those recommendations. It may be that there is a slightly different way to take forward that work. We might want it to go further. There might be some things that, for a variety of reasons that emerge, are not the right thing to do. However, in a general sense, Wither's really points the way forward. That is a terrific report. Now, what form does that little period of time when we reflect on it take? All of the major stakeholders in this, we have spoken to already, and we have asked them to take a little bit of time. We are talking six or eight weeks to reflect in detail on the Wither's report, not only on how it impacts them directly but in a broader sense, because people may spot things that they might be able to contribute to. I had a meeting with the RSE yesterday, for example, and they have a good overview of the whole sector and are useful to hear what they are thinking as well, so I would encourage others to do that. At the conclusion of that rough period, we will be directly engaged with them to get their thoughts on how we can implement what we ought to do. I have to say that the response has generally been very positive to Wither's. I am conscious that some would have us simply just go and do it now, but particularly when we need to talk to our trade union colleagues, for example, and others, we need to take that little bit of time, and we are thinking this through in great detail. To a rough timetable, I would hope to expect to come back to Parliament early post-recess, whether it is to make a statement if Parliament wishes that or whatever, or to come back to the committee and do it that way, to update members on what our thinking is. However, I would also say—I mean this genuinely—that a number of members, such as Stephen Kerr, would be a case in point, have taken a great deal of interest in the principles of reform at the sector. My door is open to anyone who wants to come and talk to me about their thinking on this, because this is a fantastic opportunity to make much needed change and to get it right. I think that it is important that we interrogate this, we look at whether there are any unintended consequences that would flow from anything that James has recommended, and then get on with addressing the reform agenda. No, just on that back of that then, what you are talking about is maybe just over a couple of months, really, or just over that anyway, maybe three months. I think that it is not for me to make any decisions on this for this committee, but I think that it would be before you actually stood in front of Parliament to bring it back to this committee and show us what is going to be implemented so that we can interrogate it to some degree before it was actually representing the Parliament and would be a good thing to do. Do you think that that would be reasonable? Well, I mean, just to commit myself a little bit of wiggle room there. You mentioned three months, I did not say three months, I said as early as it is feasible after the recess. What process ought to be followed is something for Parliament to determine if it was felt appropriate that coming in front of the committee was the right thing to do? I would be more than happy to do that. I am happy to have an informal discussion with committee members as well, collectively or individually, about their thinking on it, or if we do a statement to Parliament. However, I recognise the intense and justifiable interest in the review. There is also purpose and principles to be considered alongside that, and the two things need to be read together. I am happy to do whatever Parliament feels is appropriate by way of further updating of our thinking. Stephanie Callaghan, over to you. You are okay. Willie Rennie, please. One of the implications of the weather's review might be research funding for universities. Has the minister had any thoughts? The weather's review obviously does not cover that because it is skills focused, but nevertheless it would have quite significant implications for it. Has the minister got any thinking about that, or is it still too early? You are right. It really is not picked up in the review, but we have had some conversations with University Scotland about that, and they are right to have raised those issues. One of the concerns that has been raised is the recommendation on the funding body. Who should be the new funding body with power stain from three different directions? That is caused by the degree of disquiet around research. All I can say is that we entirely recognise the importance of research funding. That is my point. I have raised that before. The performance of Scottish research in attracting UK research council funding is dipped. We have been excellent at it, but we are just not as good as we used to be. I think that the universities are anxious that perhaps the Government does not fully understand the connection between research-applied science and economic opportunity. Although the minister has referred repeatedly to the budget challenges, the decline in performance and research predates all that, and is relative to the UK that has faced the same financial envelope. I reassure that the minister fully understands that the value of research that is prepared to invest in the long run will make sure that the new funding arrangements will take that into account. There will be, especially as the Government is keen to re-encage with business and economic opportunity, that that will be at the heart of it. I entirely recognise the role of research and universities in all of that. Megan Gallow, did you have a supplementary? You caught my eye, but I was not certain there. No, not at the same time. No, not at the same time. You are okay, that is fine. Thank you, given it. Sorry, just to... Mr Rennie, over to you again, but on the... Yes. Mental health councillors, I was pleased to see that Think Positive had secured its funding through National Union of Students Scotland. Have we got any news about what is happening with the mental health councillors? We discussed it last week and I am just keen to see if there is any progress since. I cannot sit here today and give you an answer to that. I will just offer the reassurance that it is very live at the moment. I recognise that the end of the month is a significant date in that context. It is a very challenging situation that we are in, all of the finances, and we are trying to find a solution still. Okay, that is fine. I have a question relating to the flexible workforce development fund. I was at Edinburgh College's graduation the other week and I was hearing of a number of employers who are struggling in terms of their desperate for their current staff to be upskilled and retrained for their organisations to grow and expand, but the college is not able, the funding is not quite there, to match the aspirations. I was wondering if you could discuss how it might be further improved to make sure that those small, medium-sized businesses and colleges can work together to support their growth. We are aware of the good use to which colleges have put that fund. I go back to what I said about the very significant budget challenges that we are facing. We are still working through the entirety of that. I would hope that it will be in a position to make an announcement about the SWDF very shortly. Would that be before recess, minister? Now that you have put me on the spot. Sorry. Okay, hopefully we will get an update on that as soon as practically possible as well. Okay, so I am just going round the room in case there are any other questions. Willie Rennie. International education strategy, when is that going to be published? I go back to what I said to Mr Rennie previously about how I want to approach this and the relationship with the universities in particular. We have committed to meeting the universities next week on this specific issue. I want to involve them as closely as I can in finalising the strategy. And the national innovation strategy and the funding for that in relation to universities to be able to deliver their part. Has that been worked out yet? I think that that sits with another minister, Mr Rennie. I think that we can't speak for the colleagues. You can't, right. Okay. Even the universities' implications for that, you can't speak to that. Oh, I think that the universities will be engaged in conversations with other I just suppose that you're asking in the absence of Mr Kerr, because I'm sure that you'd be keen to ask this question. I know, I know, you'd be glad. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the SFC forecasts finding that international fee income will make up a bigger proportion of university funding than funding body income o'r gyrdaneth o'r ddwyleddau aill, oherwydd cydwyr fawr o'r darllen cyntwyll. Felly, mae gynnwys ychydig yn ddim yn eich gwybr y dyn ni i nhw'n hefyd gael Oeddon y Tyfannol. Hysydd fel y cymdeithasol o'r haes ym Mh BBC. Felly, mae'n gynnwys yw ysgolion rhaid i gael gwleithiau hefyd o'r ddydysgu hyn, ac mae'n ddwyleddwyd i'r f wannau oherwydd i gael gwleithiau hefyd, o'n dechrau i'r dweud â'r rhaglenau melysio ar gyfer ymlaen i ffarrasyniaeth yma? Gwyddo'r nhw'n ysgrifes i ddechrau i ddechrau i ddechrau mynd i mwyaf d judgement i'r ddechrau i ddechrau i ddechrau i ddechrau i ddechrau i ddechrau i ddechrau i ddechrau i ddechrau… O'r cyflaen ddaughteith gydigol yma o'i cydweithas yng nghyddau yma yw ei fath gwirionedd panfredu eu ddweud nifer pethau penedig? Wyth Owned, yng Nghymru? That is us. We are now going to take a little pause. Moving on to our second item on our agenda, the committee will now consider the Luz Lwis Castle College transfer enclosure Scotland order 2023, which closes Lwis Castle College on 1 August 2023 and transfers its property, rights, liabilities and obligations to North Highland College. The instrument is being considered under the negative procedure. Do any members have any comments to make about the subordinate legislation? Yes, you can. It's just to say, obviously, that it's a fairly straightforward subordinate legislation to medical colleges, but having spoken to people who are in rural areas and particularly members who represent rural areas, it feels like it's another kind of budgetary pushed decision as opposed to a decision that serves rural communities best, and I just think it's worth putting that on the record because some of those communities are already struggling to get to and from colleges, and doing that, pulling it all into one place, might mean that a larger college doesn't serve diverse areas as well as it might. We did take a significant amount of evidence on this during our college regionalisation inquiry, so we are aware of those. Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument? Yes, agreed, thank you. The public part of our meeting has now concluded, and we will consider the final items of our agenda in private.