 The next item of business is a debate on motion 9414, in the name of Sue Webber, on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, on college regionalisation. I would invite those members who would wish to speak in the debate. Please press your request to speak buttons now, and I call on Sue Webber to speak too, and to move the motion on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. Around 10 minutes, please, Ms Webber. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the motion in the name of the committee. I am delighted to open this debate on the committee's inquiry on college regionalisation, and I'd like to begin by thanking all those who shared their knowledge and experience with us, and, of course, my committee colleagues for their due diligence. During this inquiry, the committee considered how colleges have been impacted by the regionalisation process and the consequential mergers and how they are performing now. The committee was very impressed by the work that has been done in and across our colleges. These institutions are critical to economic and social wellbeing of our economy and to the delivery of the Scottish Government's economic strategy, and for the development of a skilled workforce able to respond to the new requirements and also new opportunities in industries. For opportunities for people of all abilities to develop skills for life, and also for successfully widening access to opportunities including higher education. The committee recognised that regionalisation had allowed colleges to have a stronger voice and a seat at the table when it comes to the economic development decisions within their region, and to develop much stronger relationships with schools and universities. It has also led to a more coherent curriculum across the region, which can aid learner pathways from school to higher education, to an increase in the number of students who are receiving full credit for their HNCs and HNDs should they wish to take a degree, and to strengthening of student associations and student representation in college decision making. However, the committee also found that colleges are facing a very challenging financial situation. On average, 70 per cent of college expenditure goes on staff, and with the restricted ability to generate other funds, colleges have forecast significant staff cuts over the next five years, some up to 25 per cent. College principles also highlighted that, while the scale has increased, financial challenges are not new, with many describing the sector has been chronically underfunded. The committee believes that the full potential of colleges has been curtailed by these significant and on-going financial pressures, as well as the lack of flexibility to respond to the specific economic and societal requirements of their areas. The committee therefore recommended that the Scottish Government and Scottish Funding Council urgently give colleges as many financial and operational flexibilities as possible, to help them to deliver on the various strands of their work. Given the importance of colleges and the depths of the challenges that they are facing, I have been greatly disappointed at the lateness of the Scottish Government's response to our report, which was only provided yesterday, some three weeks late, leaving the committee as it is. It is only a day to prepare for today's debate. In addition to the lateness, it was also light on content and addressing the wide-ranging cross-cutting recommendations that we have presented. One thing that I did note when it arrived was that it went on to explain that the Scottish Funding Council has given colleges some flexibilities with regard to credit targets and to address some of the semi-fix costs that colleges have. I really look forward to hearing more from that on the minister later. The committee was concerned to hear that, in 2017, a survey identified that one third of the college estate was neither wind nor watertight. An audit Scotland found that, since 2018-19, there has been a £321 million shortfall in backlog and life cycle maintenance across the estate based on that 2017 survey. That is just to make the college estate wind and watertight. It does not consider what is required to ensure that colleges meet their net zero commitments by the 2045 deadline. Colleges are, after all, most wholly dependent on the Scottish Government and the Scottish Funding Council for capital investment. While the committee recognises the financial constraints that the Scottish Government is working within, both the Scottish Government and the Scottish Funding Council must acknowledge the significant needs of the college sector and urgently take action to ensure that more capital investment can be levered into the sector. While the cabinet secretary's response said that there would be more flexibility for capital maintenance by combining the backlog and life cycle maintenance, the allocations are still some way short of what is required, given the extent of the backlog. It did note, however, that the Scottish Government is working with the Scottish Funding Council with the intention of bringing forward the infrastructure investment plan, and again I look forward to hearing more on that from the minister later this afternoon. The committee heard about the strong partnerships that many colleges have with businesses within their region. However, we also heard that they need more flexibility to respond to the needs of students and businesses locally. The ability to develop their own qualifications, including micro-credentials, is one such flexibility that we discussed. The committee asked the Scottish Government to consider what barriers there are stopping colleges from developing such qualifications and how they might be removed. Again, I look forward to hearing the minister's thoughts on that during his contribution later. A significant ambition of the college reforms has been to enhance the student voice and to help the college sector to be more learner centred. We were grateful to have student representatives join us in the Parliament to share their views and to tell us about the successes and the challenges that they have faced in their roles. The committee was encouraged to learn that student associations have been strengthened as a result of the reforms and that student association presidents have been supported to be part of discussions about the strategic direction of the college, influence key decisions by the board and what support is available for students. However, the strength of challenge can be tempered by the financing arrangements of student associations with most dependent on their colleges for funding. The committee recognises that many college student associations are working well, but we found that others may need strengthening, possibly with more secure financing or more time and training support for the student officers. The committee wants student college associations to have real agency to offer robust challenge to their college boards and principals. We therefore asked the Scottish Government to consider whether minimum standards should be set to ensure that associations have appropriate levels of funding and the independence to protect their ability to challenge their boards. Again, I would be interested in the member's views on that. Colleges perform so many different functions, and we all need them to do that. In our report, the committee made that clear that, without increased investment or flexibility, the sector needs the Scottish Government and the Scottish Funding Council to be clear about what colleges should be prioritising. It is a commendable piece of work, and I say that without a hint of bias. Through the evidence that I am asked by the committee, which is a then member of it, I heard first hand, as well as from my own subsequent meetings across the college's landscape. It is clear that college regionalisation has delivered a number of benefits, benefits that we need to capitalise on if we are to have a lifelong education and skills system that is fit for the future. Our colleges play a unique role in the system. They deliver the broadest range of learning across almost the whole of the SCQF framework. They work with our youngest and oldest learners, building confidence in helping people to progress. They deliver learning across the whole of Scotland and partner with those in their communities, making the best use of their assets to improve outcomes in the areas that they serve. They can also play a central role in our economy, responding to the needs of employers, supporting improvement in earning potential and productivity in their regions, as well as contributing their expertise nationally and internationally. I firmly believe that the sector has a bright future. I say that whilst acknowledging entirely the difficult financial climate that we are encountering at present. There are no easy choices or easy solutions to some of the challenges that we as a Government face. Decisions have had to be made, which I wish I hadn't had to be, but in spite of those challenges, our commitment to colleges remains steadfast. Our 23-24 budget, despite severe financial pressures, will continue to invest in our colleges, enabling them to continue to deliver high-quality education and training, supporting the development of well-educated and highly-skilled people who contribute to our economy and society. Later this month, I will be meeting the sector to consider and hopefully take forward approaches that will assist their securing sustainability in the face of the current pressures. I thank the minister for giving way. Would he join with me in the context of what he has already said, which is positive? Would he join with me in appealing to feel at EIS that they would not boycott the marking of students' papers at the end of this academic year, leaving so many students hanging high and dry about their futures? Would he join with me in appealing to them not to use students as collateral in their industrial dispute with the employers? I'm not sure how that fits into the points that have just been made. Of course I would appeal to lecturers not to go down that road, but I also recognise their right to pursue their industrial action as they see fit. The on-going significance of colleges at the heart of our future post-school learning landscape and the need to get the most of it from our investment are important findings of James Willis' skills delivery review, the report of which was published last week. It sets out a compelling case for significant reform of the public sector landscape and its underpinning processes, with those notes that his eyes have been opened to the broad and pivotal role of colleges in their regions. I agree with his analysis. His recommendations call for simplification of funding and decision-making to empower regional partners to respond to their diverse local economies. There is no doubt that regionalisation means that colleges are well positioned to take up that challenge. I have already said that I find the case that Willis makes for whole system reform persuasive, but I also want to ensure that we consider the practicalities and consequences of his specific recommendations. Together with sectoral partners and in the context of wider lifelong education and skills reform, that is what we will be doing. That is why, over the summer, I will be meeting with and listening to key players in all of this, including the colleges. Let me be clear that we accept the broad direction set by James Withers. Just as the cabinet secretary set out in opening remarks in the debate on the national discussion for education, I am keen to engage with the opposition constructively as we move the education reform agenda forward. That includes listening to ideas and reflections in this chamber and away from it on proposals, particularly on Withers, to support Scotland's learners today and in the future. Can I welcome very much what he has put on the record about the Withers review, which I think provides a very clear route map for the Government to undertake some very difficult work in this sector, but necessary work. Can I encourage the minister to foster a discussion with the opposition, which recognises some of the financial challenges that the Government faces and that Withers offers a number of the solutions to those areas so that provision is delivered in a focused way that meets the needs of learners rather than meeting the needs of institutions? If that is the thinking that underpins the cross-party discussion in response to Withers, we may be able to address the financial challenges and continue to deliver world-class skills and learning opportunities for students in Scotland. John Swinney sets a challenge for all of us that we need to have a mature conversation on all of that, and I would certainly look to facilitate that. I give him that assurance. The most telling indicator of any system is how satisfied its users are with the service that they receive. The recent Scottish Funding Council statistics show increases in the previous year in enrolments, headcount and full-time equivalent places, as well as increased numbers, upskilling and reskilling on short courses and increased opportunities for those furthest from the workplace. That shows colleges are continuing to deliver the most appropriate learner offer throughout life, responding flexibly to the social and economic needs of the regions and communities that they serve. The 21-22 student satisfaction and engagement statistics show that nine out of ten full-time students were satisfied with their college experience. That is an increase in the previous year and a return to pre-pandemic levels. That speaks to the quality of the support that is given to students. Will the minister be able to give some clarity about mental health counsellors? His predecessor talked about bringing some clarity through the student mental health action plan. We still have not seen that, and there are 48 mental health counsellors, plus the think-positive staff, who could be made redundant unless the Government acts. Can he give us some news about that? The update on that is that, when I last spoke with Mr Rennie on the subject, it remains a work in progress. We are trying to resolve that issue, and I recognise the points that he makes about the importance of those services. I want to touch on colleges' wider role. Scotland's colleges do not just deliver higher and further education. They play a key role in supporting their local schools. School colleges' partnerships are a vital component in young people's learner journeys and support a wide range of positive educational outcomes that may not be achievable in the schools setting alone. Supporting the school-based offer colleges provides a variety of opportunities for learners, including skills development in work-based settings and exposure to a variety of teaching and assessment methods and a wide range of qualifications and awards. Scotland's senior-phase school learners are now undertaking a much wider range of courses than ever before, with more than 27 per cent of school leavers in 2021-22 gaining vocational and technical qualifications at SCQF level 5 and above, compared to just 7.3 per cent in 2013-14. Professor Lewis Hayward, who is leading the independent review of qualifications and assessment in Scotland, has noted that, "...school and college partnerships have become an increasingly positive feature of the educational landscape." We want to see those partnerships strengthened and developed, and that will be a key feature of our programme of reform across the education and skills portfolio. Another area in which we see examples of good practice is the articulation between our colleges and universities. While I recognise James Will as his comments on the confusing landscape, colleges and universities are already, in many instances, working in partnership to create clear progression routes to higher levels of study, from traditional articulation models to integrated and partnership degrees. In 2021, 19.1 per cent of Scottish domicile degree entrance to the university has achieved an HNC or HND in one of the three years prior to entry. That supports our widening access ambitions and demonstrates the benefits of the pathways that are already in place across different parts of the post-school system and how they are delivering for learners. However, there is, of course, more that could be done. One thing that we have heard loud and clear is around the need to make an individual's learner journey as easy and simple as possible. We have also heard about the importance of good advice and signposting in these journeys. Clear articulation routes play a role in providing increased flexibility for learners and choice of progression as they continue in their learner journey, but there is more to be done to improve articulation pathways, although we are building on strong foundations. Building on the importance of clear pathways and articulation opportunities and recognising the committee's report is the need for good careers information advice and guidance. Given the labour market shortages, there has never been a more important time for advice and support to be given for all. That is a major theme in the skills delivery review. Of course, we do not start from scratch. Skills Development Scotland has already undertaken the reviews of career services for young people in Scotland. The careers collaborative that will deliver the implementation of the strategy will help to ensure that tailored support is available to all learners. I am heartened by the approach that Colleges Scotland has taken to developing approaches that can best support college students. Taking together the careers collaborative and the focus with us places on careers provides an important milestone for embedding careers within the fabric of our learning system, and colleges will continue to play an important role in providing that advice. I am particularly grateful to Graham Smith for offering to return to the findings of the careers review in light of with us in order to consider how they might be aligned. James Withers has rightly identified that our colleges play a key role in our economy, working with small and medium-sized enterprise businesses, upskilling, reskilling and fulfilling their civic roles as local anchor institutions. They have been instrumental in our economic recovery strategy following the pandemic and will be critical to our economic future working to support delivery of the national strategy for economic transformation as we face the changes ahead. Scotland's colleges are vital in supporting the future careers and prosperity of our young people and our economy. I look forward to today's debate and to working across the chamber to support our colleges for learners today and in the future. In closing, I will seek to respond not only to the points that are made by members but to update on some of the specific issues that are noted in the report. I have to say that I was amazed by the intervention from John Swinney. You would hardly imagine that he had been at the upper echelons, the most senior positions in government for 16 years, and he suddenly has realised as a backbencher what many of us have been saying for a very long time about the skills landscape in Scotland. I welcome his conversion. I have had the privilege of sitting beside the minister when he was a member of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. I think that Graham Day is sincere. Therefore, I do not disagree with him about many aspects of his speech. I do disagree with him about breaking up the United Kingdom, but I think that we have a lot more common ground that we can explore. I think that he has a mess, frankly, to fix, and I can assure him that if he does the right things for learners in Scotland, he will have the support of these benches. I think that I know that he is passionate about the sector and how important the sector is. If we want a skills revolution and an economic transformation in our country, the college sector must play a critical strategic role. However, it is going to be difficult for the minister to defend his Government's record on colleges because it is a record of neglect and worse. His predecessor was underwhelming. Nothing much happened. I am assured that he is now the minister for independence because the union should be safe for at least another 300 years. The college sector is key to the transformation of our economy and key to the creation of skilled, highly-paid jobs. I will. I am grateful to Stephen Kerr for giving me his advice. I think that colleges need to play a huge part in delivering a net zero economy. However, in a recent construction industry, a round table emerged that, to meet the Scottish Government net zero targets, it will need more than 20,000 new engineers and trades people by 2028. Is that not why it is so important that the resources are made available to colleges as quickly as possible? The college sector is critical to the transformation that my friend has pointed out. Working in partnership with employers, the college sector is critical to meeting some of the daunting challenges that we face. Ageing and falling population, the national economic issue of a stubborn and persistent productivity gap and low economic growth, the challenge of climate change and net zero deadlines, as has just been mentioned, the challenge of enabling new generations of Scottish entrepreneurs to create the businesses and the jobs of tomorrow. Our duty across this chamber is to oversee the creation of an education and skills landscape that is fit for the present and will equip our people for the future but find words butter no parsnips. Ministers cannot pretend that they are interested in outcomes when they undercut the delivery of those outcomes, because that is what I accuse this Government of doing. Where is the long overdue statement of purposes and principles? The college sector, frankly, is suffering death by 1,000 cuts. It is a paradox. We have heard much hyperbole from Mr Kerr as usual, but if we want to deal in fact since 2012-2013, the college budget, the resource budget has increased by £168 million. I fully accept with all sorts of pressures the colleges will argue that they require a lot more, but would he acknowledge that as a fact? The fact is that, in 2006-07, when the SNP Government came to power, there were 354,000 people enrolled in our colleges and, as of 2021-22, that number was down to 236,730. A third, they have cut the sector by a third. That is not hyperbole, minister. Those are the facts and the answer that you gave in a parliamentary question. The paradox is that there is exceptional strong demand for professional technical qualifications, the very qualifications that colleges offer. Employers want to invest in their workforces, knowing that that gives them a massive competitive advantage, especially important at a time when there are global skills shortages. I am grateful to the member for taking the intervention. He mentioned the purpose and principles statement, a draft of which has been out for consultation for some time. In my feedback to that, I pointed out, I requested that we draw out more a need for a statement about what the college and university sector should be like as a place of work, given that there are very large employers in Scotland. Given that he has mentioned the statement, I wonder what his thoughts are on the draft statement. My thoughts on the draft statement are that I would appeal to the workforce, the members of PhiloEIS, that they would not use students as collateral in their current industrial dispute, because at the end of the day, John Swinney did say this, and I did agree with him, that the learner should be at the centre of the consideration of the system, not the system of the institutions or anyone that works in the system, but the students, the learners. Those are the people that we should be focusing our attention on. I would say, Presiding Officer, that we recognise the work that the college sector already does with employers, and I would like to see more of it. We should embrace a whole system approach, as James Wethers says in his important report, but we should not be forcing Scotland's colleges to ration opportunity. Colleges are a catalyst for social mobility, particularly important for people from backgrounds lacking the kind of opportunity that we as Scottish Conservatives believe should be available to all. So rationing college places diminishes opportunity. Beyond cutting courses, colleges are also struggling to maintain their facilities. The backlog of work is into the hundreds of millions of pounds and is one of the most startling aspects of the SNP Government's neglect of the college centre. I won't be able to take any more interventions. Accurate, well I think I've been rather generous, the members complaining that I haven't given way, I've given way lots of times. Accurate measurement, this is another point, accurate measurement of the success of the college sector is hampered by inadequate data collection and reporting. We have the shocking and inaccurate statistic that 30 per cent of students who begin college courses don't complete them. But when the committee challenged the minister's predecessor about the need to update how those figures are recorded and reported, we got the complacent response that he'd get round to it. Now I'm not accusing the current minister of neglect. I have high expectations for the way in which he interacts with the sector and the way in which he will represent their interests within wider government. The Scottish Conservatives would put the college sector where it belongs at the very heart of our skills agenda. And we broadly welcome James Withers' reports on the skills landscape, which rightly focuses on disparity of esteem between the different pathways open to school leavers. Now, it's something that should unite us across this chamber, that we do something to tackle this deeply ingrained disparity of esteem. There is no high road or low road for school leavers, there is only the right road for the individual based on their interests, aptitudes, capabilities and ambitions. College courses and professional and technical qualifications are no less important than any of the other available routes, but as long as the college sector is easy pickings when it comes to cuts, there will be on-going disparity. And when there was a minister in government who didn't have the passion to defend and advance the interests of the college sector, there was a consequential sense of fatalism about the college system and its future. If we are to tackle the disparity of esteem, then funding must be part of the conversation. There is very little evidence that the Government is committed to equality of opportunity for Scotland's young people. The Scottish Conservatives will put equality of opportunity at the heart of our programme for government. There are no cheap options in education. You either believe in supporting the talents of our people or you don't. You either believe in investing in human capital or you don't. We do. Mr Kerr, are we bringing our remarks to a close, please? It's up to, as Mr Swinney well knows, any individual member as to whether or not they accept an intervention that is not a matter for the chair. I would say to Mr Kerr, I have been generous reflecting the generosity I applied to the minister, but Mr Kerr, you will need to bring your remarks to a close very soon. Thank you very much indeed. I will very soon, Presiding Officer. I have spoken before about how politicians are addicted to discussing symptoms rather than the more difficult work of tackling root causes. There are problems in our society with deep-seated poverty in parts of our country. Mr Kerr, you will need to conclude it. I have been generous. Please conclude now. Right, okay. I thought I had eight minutes. It's now nearly 10 minutes. Please conclude, Mr Kerr. I will simply close by saying that we on this side will tirelessly work. Right, thank you Mr Kerr. Thank you, thank you. I need to move on to the next speaker to protect the speaking time of other members, as I'm sure the member will understand. I now call Pam Duncan-Glancy around seven minutes, please, Mr Duncan-Glancy. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of Scottish Labour today. Colleagues will know that the inquiry that we are discussing this afternoon predates my membership of the Education, Children and Young People's Committee, and so I wish to thank everyone who took part by providing written and in-person evidence and the committee for its work on it. Post-legislative scrutiny is crucial, and so therefore is the work of this report, particularly as regionalisation created significant and cultural reforms. Those who have read the report will note that the inquiry heard about far more than just regionalisation itself, and those who have listened to staff and students across the sector recently will be unsurprised by this, given the challenges it now faces. When evaluating the impacts of regionalisation, we must first recognise the wider context. Regionalisation happened at a time of huge reform in the post-16 education, including harmonisation of paying conditions, the introduction of national collective bargaining and reclassification of colleges as public bodies. We must also recognise that all of that happened against a backdrop of an increasingly difficult financial situation, with real terms cuts from government, external pressures on budgets like the cost of living crisis and the costs associated with reforms itself. That makes it difficult to separate the impacts that each of those changes, including regionalisation, has had directly, particularly because the benefits of one aspect of reform could be masked by the pitfalls of another. Or, as the Royal Society of Edinburgh put it, the policy and funding context in which regionalisation was implemented had significant implications and curtailed the potential for wider success and impact. One example of this missed opportunity, I think, is from an Audit Scotland report in 2018. They projected a potential saving of £50 million each year from 2015-16 as a result of regionalisation, which could have delivered one of its initial aims to improve financial efficiency. Sector was and is facing an increasing deficit, so a saving of that amount could have begun to plug the gap, but instead it has been mitigated by another of the reform policies. Harmonisation costs became the responsibility of colleges in 2018-2019 after the Government stopped the initial funding. The £50 million cost of that absorbed savings from regionalisation. Reform also restricted the flexibility that colleges have to make and spend money through their reclassification of public bodies with central government funding. As the report says, reclassification led to a tighter financial operating environment that limited what colleges can do with their money and, as we see with the redundancies that are faced in the sector, has not really brought the benefit of protections of such classification on paying conditions. Workforce costs in colleges account for 70-80 per cent of spending. As their largest expenditure in the perilous financial state colleges find themselves, they have looked to reduce staff numbers. Some have modelled a staff reduction of more than 25 per cent by 2026-27. That could have disastrous effects on students and colleges across the country. The Government must therefore address the inflexibility of funding as a priority, and I welcome the Government's movement on that but urge it to consider whether it can do more, not only for the sake of jobs and courses but also to support colleges to realise the flexibility and innovation that regionalisation could have brought and that they are good at. Can I just assure her that the process that is being undertaken is with the colleges to identify possible flexibilities? The scale and nature of those will, in part, be shaped by what they bring forward for our consideration. I give the assurance that we will approach that process with a positive outlook. I appreciate the minister's intervention, and I welcome that he will look at that with a positive outlook, because I think that it is crucial to addressing some of the financial problems that the sector faces. All that, coupled with a lack of Government direction over what it should be prioritising and delivering, has made an impact on the funding choices that colleges can make. The delay in publishing the strategic vision for further and higher education has created uncertainty, making it difficult for institutions to do any long-term financial and strategic planning, leading Audit Scotland to raise concerns over the long-term financial sustainability and forecast of further deterioration in the future. We have also left staff and students living with unsettling consequences of uncertainty. Without sufficient resources and direction, the potential of regionalisation risks being lost. We cannot afford that to happen, because the benefits, as the committee has heard and has been outlined, can be huge. Edinburgh, the data is compelling. Regionalisation has brought better collaboration with universities, which has led to smoother articulation pathways and an increase of 22 per cent in the number of students with advanced standing. It has also strengthened relationships with schools and businesses, leading to more than 2,000 local and regional business partnerships and an increase of 300 per cent in school, college activity. In Glasgow 2, the increased credibility of working as one has allowed for stronger relationships with employers, creating a new landscape that opens communications over skills, allowing colleges to know what gaps there are and might be in the future and how best to deliver on them. It has allowed for a clearer calibration of the curriculum and that reflects the regional labour market. The partnership of Glasgow's three colleges has done that by working together to develop one stream-length curriculum to best incorporate the skills that are needed by employers, broaden provision and remove duplication. They have done that using existing, established high-level operational structures. In the spirit of both reducing duplication and providing certainty to colleges, I have asked the Government to respond swiftly to questions over the need for the regional board, including whether the functions of the board are already carried out in-house and by other public bodies. Whether removing them would help to reduce unnecessary duplication and lead to further savings, allowing colleges to have that direct relationship with the funding council could also remove some of the clutter from an already restrictive landscape and give them back a sense of autonomy. Ensuring strong governance is key, so I also asked that the minister published the Government's good governance guidance so that colleges, staff and students can benefit from reduced duplication and effective scrutiny. In conclusion, regionalisation has so much potential, but against the backdrop that it feels like any success has been in spite of many challenges, a clutter of structural and process reform, all introduced against severe financial decline has left colleges in their perilous position. The ambition of regionalisation had huge potential, but it has not been met with a leadership engagement or support from the Government to ensure its success. I hope that we will see a change in direction on that from the new minister and at pace so that we can empower colleges across the country to live up to their full potential. I was a bit puzzled by the minister's response to my question about mental health, because he knows that I have raised this consistently with him and his predecessors. It does seem to be taking an awful long time to get clarity on this. The positive is a relatively inexpensive programme run by NUS Scotland. There are 48 mental health councillors who are providing an excellent service for students who particularly have gone through the pandemic over the last few years. Some of them are struggling to a great degree, so I'm not quite sure why it's taking so long to get the clarity to provide the funding to allow this service to continue. There are people's jobs and livelihoods at stake here. If we take too much longer to get this resolved, some of those people might go and that service would be therefore undermined. I hope that the minister will move much more speedily. If this group disband, getting the group back together to serve will be a much harder, much more expensive and far more time-consuming process. He's absolutely right. Another minister is a reasonable person, and I'm sure he'll look at this and make sure that we do get a resolution to this much sooner rather than later. I want to thank the clerks and the witnesses who gave us some really invaluable evidence, some quite entertaining sessions as well that we had on the committee. As the Royal Society of Edinburgh has highlighted, it has summed it up quite well. It is really quite difficult to disentangle the benefits of regionalisation versus things that might have happened already. There's no doubt that the broader geography that's provided with some regionalisation allows a greater interaction with some of the higher education institutions, the universities, but also with the sector and employers. There's no doubt that that's the case. The removal of duplication means that some localities don't have certain courses. As we know, students in further education are less likely to travel to further apart premises. The likelihood is that some young people have been deprived of an opportunity of being trained within their community. I'm grateful to Mr Rennie for giving me this. Mr Rennie believed that the experience of the pandemic where people became more accustomed to utilising digital learning and sector became much more adept at delivering that, perhaps provides for some of the space for innovation. The provision of education to address exactly the problem that Mr Rennie fairly raises is that courses may not be available in individual locality, but they may be available digitally. Willie Rennie? I think that that's true, but we also need to be careful not to overstate and over-rely upon the new technologies, because there's nothing like, I have to say, face-to-face, to be able to have that personal interaction, the discussions on the side, the opportunities to ask the lecturer or the member of staff that little question they might not want to ask in front of everybody else. So we shouldn't overstate the benefits that come from some of that remote learning, but of course there will be some opportunities. I think that there is an opportunity for the new minister. I think that it's fair to say that there was quite a lack of direction and quite a high degree of drift under the previous ministerial team, and I'm really hopeful that he'll be able to provide that emphasis and a bit of zip into the direction of further education and the college sector. We've had quite a radical proposal from the Wither's Review. We've got the Hayward report that should be coming out very soon. We've got the reorganisation of the national bodies as well. So there's a variety of different consultations and working groups that are coming to a conclusion, and I know that the minister will want to pull all those together. But we need to pull them together with some degree of speed, because colleges are already making decisions now about their future and what courses they're providing, and if we don't provide them with direction, they'll make those decisions by themselves. I don't disagree with what he said, but would he also recognise that, with a set of proposals as radical as Wither's is, it's also appropriate to take a little bit of time, strike a balance, but take a little bit of time to consult with all those who are captured or not least of all the trade unions, many others, in order to get this right, to ensure that there are no unintended consequences in what's proposed before we get to that final decision about what we take forward? Willie Rennie. That's not his fault, but this is the predicament that we're in. Because of that lack of direction, the drift that's been in place for the last few years, we're in this really difficult position where colleges are making decisions right now about their future and the courses that they're providing, but the Government's not in a position, not unreasonably, for the minister, to be able to provide them with that kind of direction. That leads me on to some really odd decisions that have been made. I thought the Government's policy for the public sector was no compulsory redundancies, but we have got one particular college that's proposing compulsory redundancies through in Glasgow, so I don't quite understand what Government policy is now. Are we for or are we against compulsory redundancies? There's no doubt, following the ONS reclassification, that colleges are part of the public sector, part of the mainstream offer from Government, but yet the minister seems quite relaxed to allow compulsory redundancies to be taken place at one of the biggest colleges and institutions in the country. I'd like some clarity from the minister in his conclusion, but also on pay. The minister, or the ministerial team, was quite content to intervene on the teacher's pay dispute, but is refusing to intervene on the college pay dispute, and therefore it's lasting for quite a bit longer. The lecturers, the staff are being told if there's a pay increase, that will come in terms of job losses, because there is no other money available. On top of that, the Government has cut £26 million from the funding, and I know some of the decisions that have been made recently are not directly connected to the £26 million, but it's not helped. There is a real confusion about Government policy here. Is it for intervention to resolve pay disputes, because it is in some areas, but not in others? It's pitting one lot of staff in the public sector against the other by saying that we're taking the money from the college sector to pay for the teachers' pay rises, and we're saying that there's no more money for colleges. All of a sudden, the no compulsory redundancy policy seems to be right out the window, so we want some clarity from the Government as to whether that is the case. I think that there are some indications from the minister in his letter to the committee yesterday about perhaps looking at England in terms of some of the flexibilities, and I look forward to discussion on that for the college flexibilities to allow them to be more innovative. We just need to get rid of the Glasgow board. I don't know why that exists. I know that the committee took a more balanced approach, but I'm not taking a balanced approach. I think that it needs to go. It's duplication. It costs a lot of money. Mr Rennie, could you bring him on to close, please? I hope that the minister will address those serious points. I think that there's been a good debate so far, and I hope that the minister is able to answer the questions that I have posed. Thank you, Mr Rennie. We will now move to the open debate. In the speeches of six minutes, I call Ruth Maguire to be followed by Megan Gallagher. 10 years on from the college regionalisation, the education children and young people committee were keen to take an inquiry to examine how the structural changes were working in practice to explore what extent the aims of regionalisation had been achieved. The aims included an ambition for all young people over the age of 16 to stay in learning and achieve qualifications, improving their job prospects and earnings in the long term. Removing core duplication and unnecessary competition for students between colleges and universities, greater efficiency while still supporting local delivery and ensuring that the college landscape could meet current education, employment and skills challenges and respond rapidly to emerging scenarios. We wanted to look at how equipped colleges were to deliver what's required of them and consider any further changes that might be of benefit to the sector learners and the communities that the college sector serves. I'm very grateful to the variety of organisations and individuals who provided written and oral evidence, sharing their experience, their insight into what was working well and where challenges and opportunities for improvement existed. Colleges are institutions delivering on multiple critical fronts. They provide opportunities that allow people to develop skills to live more independently and for others to take their first steps back into formal education, helping some of those further away from the job market. I've mentioned before the excellent work that Ayrshire College does in this regard. They have a very successful project called Project Search that runs in collaboration with partners at University Hospital Crosshouse and the National Trust for Scotland at Colleen Castle. They provide supported learning students with 800 hours of immersion in the facilities of each host business, preparing them to be work ready. The college has told me previously that many students have progressed from the intensive work focus of Project Search to achieve paid employment. Colleges provide tangible opportunities for widening access and social mobility. Indeed, in his evidence to the committee, Stuart Brown of EIS Fila highlighted that it is a specific mission of colleges to deliver education to people in their communities who have perhaps been left behind by other parts of the education system. Colleges are places of lifelong learning and development, providing a platform where people can improve their skills or develop new interests at any point in their life. In delivering high-quality, highly respected advanced vocational qualifications and professional training, colleges with their strong links to industry play a pivotal role in upskilling the workforce in new technologies for new industries, making them absolutely critical to the realisation of the Scottish Government's national strategy for economic transformation and the goal of a wellbeing economy. The committee report makes clear from the evidence that there have been positive changes from regionalisation alongside the broader policy changes taking place over the last 10 years, including the creation of colleges of scale, providing a stronger and more credible platform to engage with educational and economic partners, something that I saw first-hand with Ayrshire College and the involvement of its principal and various economic forums. The committee concluded that the coherence of curriculum across the region that the college serves has aided learner pathways from school to higher education. I note that there are increases in articulation and widening access to higher education. In his evidence to the committee, Sir Peter Scott, the then commissioner for fair access, highlighted that colleges were absolutely crucial to the aim of fair access. He stated that colleges were a key path into degree courses, noting that of the entrance to degree courses in higher education, who have come from a more deprived background, 40 per cent went through a college route. I agree with his conclusion that Scotland's record on fair access would be much diminished if it wasn't for colleges. Enhancement of the student voice through the strengthening of student associations and student representation in college decision making is another area recognised as being a success. However, along with those clear successes, there are frustrations and challenges that need to be addressed. What is beyond doubt is that the Scottish Government currently faces the most difficult public spending environment since devolution. There are pressures throughout our public sector and I understand and accept that really difficult decisions have been and will continue to need to be taken by Scottish Government ministers. In that context, maintaining the college resource budget at last year's level is not unwelcome. However, I also accept and understand that colleges like all public bodies are also facing increased costs and pressures. I want to recognise the flexibilities that the Scottish Government has introduced for colleges, as outlined in the letter received by the cabinet secretary to the committee. However, notwithstanding what Mr Day said in intervening on Pam Duncan-Clancy, I would like to press the minister for further and higher education in that regard. I know that it is a matter that he is interested in, and I was during his time on committee. As predecessor agreed with the principle of being as flexible as possible and providing as many fiscal and operational tools as we could to the college sector. I would really welcome if, in closing, the minister could outline what more the Scottish Government can do to support colleges to continue to deliver within the existing financial envelope and when they can do that. The committee produced a balanced report that acknowledges the success and highlights challenges and opportunities. I commend it to the chamber and thank everyone who contributed to it. I can advise the chamber that we are very tight for time, so I would be obliged if colleagues could stick to their speaking allocation. Megan Gallar has to be followed by Bill Kidd up to six minutes. Over a decade ago, the Scottish Government embarked on its college rationalisation strategy. That resulted in the reduction in the number of colleges from 41 to 26 and the creation of 13 regions. We know from the committee report that its members concluded that regionalisation has perhaps led to a more carable platform to engage with educational and economic partners, a more constructed pathway for young people to access colleges and enhancing the voices of students and their student bodies. Progress that all MSPs could welcome. However, while progress has been made in this area, it does not excuse the SNP's mismanagement of higher and further education. Our learning institutions are suffering as are our students. The SNP's decision to cut funding, reduce services and ignore concerns by trade unions and academics, colleges have been left to pick up the mace. One recent example is New College Lanarkshire in my region. Many talented students, including the likes of Lewis Gepaldi, have attended this college and I am proud that students have chose Lanarkshire to learn. However, students have been told that they will need to find somewhere else to live, as the Motherwell campus has closed its halls of residency, citing government cuts. Staff impacted by this decision have been offered voluntary redundancy or redeployment, all because the establishment is facing a real terms cut of £4.3 million. Not only does this impact students who live in the central region, but young people who live in rural areas, and I have had several people contact me since the news broke. One email I received was from a grandmother. She lives in her guile, and she told me that her grandchild, who also lives in the island, will not be able to accept their place at Motherwell campus because of the accommodation closure. Imagine being a young person in that position. Working hard to obtain the grades needed to be accepted for New College Lanarkshire, being told that the halls of residency were there to provide you with safe and secure accommodation, receive your acceptance letter, only to find out that you can no longer go because of Scottish Government cuts. What message does this send to our rural young people choosing to study in urban areas? Is the minister aware of the real-life consequences that cuts to ecology's cause for our students, of course? I hear repeatedly from Megan Gallacher, perhaps more than other Conservatives, about this issue, and there's much wailing and gnashing her teeth. Will she acknowledge the impact on the Scottish Government budget there has been by the fiscal incompetence of some of her colleagues over a very damaging brief period in charge at Westminster? The impact that that has had on the Scottish Government and all that means. That's a bold claim from the Minister of the Scottish Government. To add to the woes of the education sector that is being faced across Lanarkshire, it was announced that nurseries at the Cotebridge and Cumbernauld campus of New College Lanarkshire were also to close. Their two members of childcare staff would have impacted mostly women, and I was gobsmacked, Presiding Officer. We are facing a childcare crisis in Scotland, and nearly 30 early-year practitioners would have been told that their place of work is shutting its doors. Does she think that it's appropriate that the Minister sums up the genuine concerns that you represent in this chamber today as weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth? Is that not ultimately disrespectful of the concerns of these young people and their ambitions? I completely agree, but then again, as I said, it's a bold statement from the Minister to talk to the Conservatives about financial mismanagement. I think they only need to look at their own government. Back to the real concerns, Presiding Officer. I think that the Minister is laughing about the serious issues that I am trying to raise and completely disrespectful to the people that I am patting. Staff are devastated by the announcement of the closure of the nursery, not just because they are going to lose their jobs, but also for the children and their parents who might not be able to continue with their college courses. Those are the real impacts that cuts have on our college estates. Regretfully, those are not the only local challenges that I will share today. Back in April, it was announced that new college Lanarkshire will leave the Hamilton campus when the lease expires in July. That will be another blow to Hamilton Town Centre following the closure of the University of the West of Scotland on Elmada Strait some years earlier. All of the recent discussions at new college Lanarkshire have resulted in a reduction of staff. Unison has now launched an online petition calling on the education secretary to intervene in the crisis in gulfing the further education sector in Scotland. That is a crisis in our nurseries, a crisis in our schools and a crisis in our universities and colleges. The SNP will try and give themselves a pat in the back today because of the positive messaging in the committee report, but the state of Scottish education in general is bleak. That is a symptom, as Stephen Kerr rightly pointed out, but there is also a cure. The cure has to be worked together through cross-party working but also with some of the policies that can be shared via cross-party. If Stephen Kerr had the time today, I'm sure he would have been able to share some of the policies that we are proposing. I will close with a plea to the Scottish Government and the Minister to stop spondering money by making bad choices and voting through bad law. Make good choices by investing in our higher and further education so that young people such as the young person from a ururo community can go to a college of their choice to study a course that will give them the foundations to succeed. As we know, in 2012, the Scottish Government took a decision to introduce structural changes to the college sector as part of its wider reforms to post-16 education. Changes designed to make course choice more effective and college operations more efficient, resulting in colleges being organised into regions with larger colleges and fewer in number. Ten years after those changes, the Education, Children and Young People Committee have produced today's report to look at how regionalisation has been working in practice and to see what further changes the sector could benefit from in the future. Although I recently joined the committee, I would like to thank all the members, clerks and a variety of organisations and individuals who took part in helping to shape and produce what is a comprehensive, well-thought-through and insightful report. 2012 changes had a number of aims to provide the opportunity for all young people over the age of 16 to stay in learning, to remove course duplication, to reform the college landscape and ensure that it could meet current education employment and skills challenges and respond rapidly to emerging scenarios and also to merge some colleges to create colleges of scale. The 2012 consultation was always wished to increase the voice of students in decision making. There was already some representation, but the changes aimed to strengthen those arrangements, including proposals, to strengthen the profile of student unions, to make student representation more effective and in turn help to ensure that institutions meet the needs of their learners. Overall, the response from those giving evidence identified a number of positive outcomes from regionalisation. They agreed that the changes have increased the voice of students' help to grow college student association and give students some more say. Colleges of scale have created larger institutions with more standing in the regions and more ability to respond to local economic needs. There has been less duplication in the courses offered across each region. With regard to providing the opportunity for young people to stay in learning, I am afraid that Ruth Maguire stole my line as usual. The commissioner for fair access, Sir Peter Scott, noted that the social base of college students is much wider than that of students at higher education institutions. 25.3 per cent of higher education entrants in 2020-21 came from the 20 per cent most deprived communities in Scotland compared to only 16.7 per cent of entrants to full time first degree courses at university. Colleges are also a key provider of training and development, where people can work towards professional and vocational qualifications that are key drivers of social mobility. They also give people who face the greatest barriers to learning to the opportunity to fulfill their potential. In 2021, more than a fifth, that is 22.6 per cent of learning hours, were delivered to students with a declared disability. Colleges are also at the centre of delivering the Scottish Government's national strategy for economic transformation, namely to support the creation of entrepreneurial people and culture, new market opportunities, productive business and regions, skilled workforce and a fairer and more equal society. Karen Watt, the chief executive of the Scottish funding council, highlighted the success that many colleges have in engaging with local employers and small and medium businesses through funds such as the flexible workforce development fund and the work that they do to develop entrepreneurial people and new market opportunities. The Royal Society of Edinburgh's equity success is saying that colleges will have a pivotal role to play in reskilling workers in support of a just transition. That is often viewed through the context of workers exiting the oil and gas industry and to the need for higher-level skills that applies to any worker needing to upgrade and adapt their skills. The work of colleges in supporting reskilling of the more traditional trades associated with the built environment will be essential. Therefore, it is important to note that, despite difficult economic times, the Scottish Government's 2023-24 budget allocated nearly £2 billion to Scotland's universities and colleges, maintaining college and university resource budgets at last year's levels. Since 2012-13, the college sector resource budget has increased by more than £168 million in cash terms. The committee also identified a number of areas where challenges remain, including the fact that being defined by geographical boundaries can be limiting, particularly when working to respond to a large sexual demand for skills. In its recommendations, the committee recognised the challenge of responding to sector demands for skills and the burden that this may place on SMEs. It agreed with Audit Scotland that, in order to improve the current situation in relation to workforce skills planning, strong leadership from the Scottish Government is required, as is more effective joint working between Skills Development Scotland and the Scottish Funding Council. The committee also identified the fact that colleges are facing a difficult financial situation and recommended that, in the current financial climate, it is essential that the Scottish Government provides clarity to colleges regarding what they should be prioritising. The committee also agreed that, in response to the current financial situation, the Scottish Government should explore ways of providing more flexibility for colleges in terms of finance and delivery. I believe that this is something that the Scottish Government is looking at and would urge them to update the committee on this important point of the earliest possible opportunity. Finally, the latest student satisfaction statistics published by the SFC show that 9 out of 10, 90.2 per cent, full-time students were satisfied with the college experience in 2021-22. The show shows that we are doing a number of things right and that, overall, the changes made to the sector have been a success. It is also clear that the report identifies a number of ways in which we can build on the success and urge the Government to give all the committee's recommendations due consideration to ensure that our colleges continue to flourish. I thank the committee for its work on the report and the opportunity to scrutinise it. I am sure that we all agree that Scotland needs a financially sustainable further education sector that delivers for those who need it, and that is what I will focus my contribution on today. It appears to me from reading the report that the submissions received by the committee that staff, trade unions and students alike are reporting that the experience of regionalisation has been overwhelmingly negative. I accept that it has been a complex time of change but nonetheless we have heard that the potential opportunities were just not grabbed. Although many problems that we see in our colleges existed prior to regionalisation, users feel that it is apparent that the process has, in many cases, only made things worse. Jobs have already been lost, more redundancies are on the cards and the pay settlement has not been held at all by this Government, which was well outlined by Willie Rennie. Another point that was raised is that the necessary repairs and additions to colleges' states simply are not happening and those things are essential for this sector. I think that it needs to be said that the views of those on the educational front line should be paramount in this debate, not those of the lobbyists or indeed of the politicians and I include myself in this. I would encourage people to read the accounts from those working in the sector that were given to the committee and perhaps to listen to some of the sessions. What they are saying to this committee in my view is that the centralisation of courses has meant that local provision for a breadth of education has been undermined, which has further disadvantaged those who live in more remote areas such as my own and made it increasingly difficult to limit the financial costs of travel. It has been a big change in costs for those students and we have heard from other members that it perhaps means that people will not be attracted to those courses. They are also saying that further education is still treated as an unloved sibling compared to higher education. This is a tale that we have heard for many years now and is an important fact that was brought to the committee. In unison submission, it was clear that surveys of its own members showed a serious increase in stress experienced, leading to a greater absence. The majority of staff felt that their workloads were extremely high. This is not a sustainable situation for the colleges to work in. Colleges are being asked to make cuts and efficiencies, but the Government has not been clear about exactly what should be prioritised. I have heard that first hand from a recent visit in my region to the Borders Colleges, the Newton St Boswell campus. Those staff and students are not being unreasonable. They want to have some guidance from the Government on those points except the intervention. I think that it is a fair criticism, the one about direction from the Government. What I would offer the assurance on is that purpose and principles will be published shortly and that will offer the guidance that they have been looking for. I thank the minister for that and that was my next point. I was going to make his to ask, could you please make that clear so I really welcome that contribution from yourself. In my view, regionalisation was as many things in the public sector driven by saving money more than delivering better education. It has simply not delivered meaningful positive transformation. In my view, that is part of a wider lack of attention given to further education over a long period of time. I think that the committee's report does reflect that. If you read the committee report, it is indicating that it has been a long-term lack of attention to this sector. That is abundantly clear when we consider another point that I want to bring up with the minister is student poverty. We are still at a stage where it is not clear when, one, the special support payment will be delivered, two, who is even eligible for it, or three, how it will interact with other Scottish benefits. Indeed, it remains unclear how and when the Government will increase student support in line with a living wage by 2024-25, important points that have to be addressed. The committee is rightly concerned that an effort to make savings standards will be adversely affected or could be adversely affected. I think that if we are clear about this, there is no way that we can make yet more savings without that happening. We need to have a clearer financial stable settlement. Regionalisation has happened against a backdrop of serious funding cuts for universities and colleges across Scotland, a common theme within the public sector and one that is often treated as inevitable when it is anything but. We cannot really still believe that it is possible to continuously do more with less after the years of austerity this country has suffered. It simply does not work. We have to value our colleges properly and understand that they are the foothold many people need to push on in their lives and careers. That cannot be treated as a secondary consideration. I am pleased to speak in this debate as a member of the Education, Children and Young People's Committee and I add my thanks to all those providing committee evidence and to the clerks and my colleagues for their hard work. The regionalisation of colleges has helped to ensure the delivery of attractive, high-quality educational opportunities and provided Scotland students with choices by creating colleges of scale. Diplocation of courses provision has reduced and stronger school, college and other local partnerships have been fostered as a result. This inquiry, for me, has highlighted how college regionalisation lies at the heart of Scotland's just transition. The climate emergency is undoubtedly one of the biggest challenges that we face as a world. The Scottish Funding Council's Coherence and Sustainability report from 2021 emphasised the significant role colleges must play in the drive for a green recovery. By equipping our citizens with the education skills and training needed for new emerging jobs and locally new college Lancashire have integrated sustainable policies as part of the strategy and plan to be carbon neutral by 2042. Colleges are anchored institutions in our communities and regionalisation has strengthened their ties to universities, schools, local authorities and local businesses. At new college Lancashire, they have developed diverse partnerships that have led to wide-ranging developments. From developing a smart hub in Lanarkshire and partnership with the North Lanarkshire Council and Strathclyde University and funded by the Scottish Government's Advanced Manufacturing Challenge Fund, that has opened up manufacturing innovation and robotics to educators and businesses alike to work with ACS clothing to create a spectacular ozone trailer mural. Those are very different examples that demonstrate the remarkable innovation and creativity that lies at the core of our college sector. I thank the member for giving way. Is the member as concerned as I am about the closure of the halls of the residency and the impact that that could have for students that are trying to access new college Lancashire? I'm aware of the challenges around that area and hopefully that's something that we can pick up on. Colleges have rightly recognised their critical role in fostering social mobility and regionalisation has helped pave the way to educational opportunities for those furthest away from the education system and the labour market. Everyone deserves an opportunity to access higher education irrespective of the socioeconomic background. Over the past decade, school-colleagues' relationships have become stronger and played a vital role in lifting the aspirations of young people to stay in education. Those partnerships mean pupils have had greater exposure to potential pathways that they find attractive, providing alternative environments to schools and universities. To quote Sir Peter Scott again, the college route is absolutely crucial because colleges clearly reach people that universities in their own right find it much more difficult to reach even with their best efforts. Enhancing student voices is also pivotal to creating a college sector that is diverse and truly learner-centred. During the inquiry, it was understood that while realisation has enhanced the student voice, particularly in their involvement in discussions at board level, student associations need to feel able to challenge boards properly. Sue Weber has already highlighted the committee's call for the Scottish Government to consider how funding might impact the independence of student voices. Regionalisation has brought a wide range of benefits to our communities, including the capability of colleges to be agile and responsive to our society's ever-changing needs. However, current policies and funding landscapes can hinder that ability to respond to those local needs. In response, our committee urgently recommends giving colleges as many financial and operational flexibilities as possible to help them to deliver on the various strands of their work, including flexibilities for year-end on SFC outcomes and access to additional funds. I appreciate what the ministers already said, and the flexibilities that have been delivered this year have been helpful, changes to guidance to optimise the balance of full and part-time provision, credit-target reduction and retaining a share of funding where credit targets are under-delivered, and rolling backlog maintenance and life-single maintenance into one funding allocation. However, Eichelruth McGuire's call to act promptly to deliver further flexibilities, and we have asked the minister to reaffirm his commitment to continue working jointly with colleges, agree additional flexibilities and assist colleges in their day-to-day operations. Further to that, colleges often find themselves taking multiple directions, and without a clear definition of their role and purpose, intended goals of regionalisation can consequently go unmet. I know that the minister is aware of the importance and urgency of a final purpose and principle statement, and I appreciate that the college sector is highly complex and needs to be decluttered. However, delivery of that statement is absolutely vital to ensure that colleges can continue to positively contribute to their society, economy and just transition, and it really cannot come soon enough. In closing, it is positive to hear how our colleges and communities have the benefits of regionalisation. However, challenges remain and there is no room for complacency when it comes to the delivery of education. While I believe that the minister is right to take the time that he did to engage and collaborate directly with college leaders, to listen to him and work with them, we must make the quickest progress possible. Moving forward, there must be a continued focus on developing Scotland's world-class educational system, one that places learners at its heart, grows diverse partnership working and encourages people from all walks of life in Scotland to grow and thrive. Bob Doris will follow me up to six minutes. It is exactly ten years ago, in fact, almost to the day when the Post-16 Education Scotland Act was passed by the Parliament by 65 Government votes to 51 Opposition votes. It was a very lengthy process and not without considerable controversy, partly because it was one of the hybrid bills, just like the Children and Young People's Bill of 2014, which, with hindsight, I think we all felt was a bit too big and unwieldy. There were some very good intentions, such as improving governance of further and higher education institutions, but many of those intentions became submerged in complexity. The college regionalisation programme was part of that, and it fell into a little difficulty because the main driver was too often seemed to be administrative with accompanying financial saving rather than educational improvement. Now, undoubtedly, there is a balance to be sought between accountability and autonomy, which is never an easy one. But when it came to college regionalisation, that proved quite difficult, because while several college principals and boards at the time were very supportive of the Scottish Government's plans because they liked the idea of co-ordinated regional curricula, as Pam Duncan Glancy mentioned in her speech, others wanted more autonomy. Of course, we then had other issues around Glasgow, Lanarkshire and within UHI. Mike Russell's speeches of the time focused a great deal on the financial economies of scale and reduction in duplication, which he believed would be delivered. Unfortunately, because of that, less attention was paid to educational outcomes, and that was true, I have to say, for higher education as well. It was certainly one of the reasons why the Scottish Conservatives and I suspect Labour and the Liberals opposed the bill. I personally felt that, while super-sized colleges would undoubtedly make financial savings, they would lose a little bit of the flexibility in delivering courses to suit local economies, which had always been the advantage of the previous college system. I note that that issue is very much at the forefront of what the education committee is stating in paragraph 95 in its report. I vividly remember when I first came into this Parliament visiting Adam Smith College and the Rossaith dockyards at the time to be told just how successful their local economy approach had been. I was worried that super-sized colleges were going to take away a little bit of that. Up to a point, that has been true. I mention all that, not just to provide some context, but also in light of the recent report from James Withers. I applaud that very much, because I think that he reflects quite a number of the concerns that date from the post-16 act. He has clearly picked up on the concerns that have been referenced in many colleges Scotland papers over the years and those produced by Audit Scotland. Withers is examining the lack of coherency within post-16 education qualifications, the lack of parity of esteem between colleges, universities and apprenticeship routes and issues that have consistently been raised for many years by those in the further education sector. The Withers report, just as the minister hinted, provides an excellent opportunity to address many of those issues, specifically to provide a clarity of vision and notwithstanding what the Scottish Fiscal Commission and the Cumberford and Little report said to reform the whole structure. The most important recommendation in the Withers report is the need for public and business trust in a new structure of post-16 education, which is clearly understood and appropriate to the diverse needs of the modern workforce. We should not ignore the fact that 44 per cent of businesses that responded to the Institute of Directors' survey are saying that they do not really think that their employees have the right skills for the modern economy. What also matters is that the public and business also understand trust and value the qualifications system. In that regard, I think that the Education Committee has made a very important point in paragraph 106 about whether colleges should be able to design their own qualifications, and if so, how would that fit into a national design, particularly pertinent if there is to be a merger between some of the post-16 education agencies? Incidentally, I think that there is a good case. What surely matters most is that educational success and skills are increasingly adaptable in the modern world, because all is not well presently. I mentioned that businesses are complaining about weaknesses in their employees' ability to harness basic skills. We know that college drop-out rates are still too high, and that is something that Audit Scotland has identified. I hear what the Scottish Government says about the increasing numbers in positive destinations, but we still have a debate about what positive destinations mean. We also have an even bigger debate about tracking those who perhaps fall out of the education system. The committee in paragraph 113 rightly highlights the issue of careers guidance. I know that my party has a lot to say about how that can be improved, because the right careers guidance is so essential to young people. If we get bad careers guidance, that can affect the pathway for that youngster for their future career. Finally, I think that there is a major issue of the college estate and how well suited it is to deliver the education of the future. The sector itself is complaining bitterly that successive cuts to colleges have in some institutions done long-term damage to that environment. The whole debate is surely about what policies can deliver excellence in our institutions, maintaining and enhancing the sector's national and international reputation, and responding to the diverse needs of the local economies. I think that the Wither's report has a lot to say on that. Bob Doris, to follow by Ross Goua up to six minutes, Mr Doris. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I want to thank our committee members, Clark, Spice and all witnesses who supported our college regionalisation inquiry that we are debating this afternoon. Given the obvious challenges facing the sector, currently not least of all financial challenges, I just want to say that initially to set the undoubted success of college regionalisation in some sort of context. We are not in denial of the challenges, but we should celebrate the success of regionalisation. I want to begin by reminding to 2011 that I was originally MSP, Alice and Alan were the colleges minister back in the day, and Alice accepted my invite to attend the then North Glasgow College. We were there to discuss potential college regionalisation, as well as the extra work of students and lecturers. The most important discussion was a round table with students. They spoke of confusion over clear educational pathways from national certificates, HNCs, HNDs on to higher education, how the different colleges work with each other, different credit requirements. There was a real confusion and lack of articulation there, and those students wanted to see the forum. I suppose that this college regionalisation report heard strong evidence that the aspirations of those students that we spoke to some 12 years ago now have broadly, not entirely, but broadly been realised with college regionalisation. We have heard already during this debate about the progress in Edinburgh and there has been a similar progress in Glasgow. A fragmented college network back then in the city has been transformed, not perfectly, but transformed into a three-college network with colleges working much more closely and collegially together to ensure where possible a smooth and coherent learner journey. I would also at this point, if I have time, Presiding Officer. I can give you a little bit of time back, Mr Doris. Just very quickly, does he agree that we can make further progress if we take up the recommendations of the Withers report, because he is quite clearly pointing out to the fact that there is still confusion over the post-16 landscape? I thank the Smith intervention. I am keen to look at that. There are absolutely opportunities there, but I would appreciate it like time to have a look at that in a bit more detail. I take on board with the point that has been made. A much more smooth and coherent learner journey with regionalisation. That is also true crucially regarding greater course articulation between colleges and universities to allow a greater amount of students from colleges gaining advanced standing when moving on to university. That allows FE students to receive full credit for prior college learning and to move into the most appropriate part of their undergraduate degree. So, not starting day one, year one, they have that prior learning and that should be recognised by universities. There has been some progress. In the year 1415, that was true of 55.7 per cent of those who are not on to university from a college setting. Currently it is 58 per cent, so progress, but our target is 75 per cent. Progress is obviously not good enough. There is some recommendation in our report about how we have to do far better in relation to that. Sir Peter Scott described the progress as glacial. Our recommendation is really direct towards higher education. They have to do more in relation to this. I would say that regionalisation has also boosted our widening access agenda and I think that the best way to illustrate that is to quote Sir Peter Scott, who stated that regionalisation had produced larger institutions that were more comprehensive, more resilient, more self-confident. It was his view that strengthening colleges allowed them to continue to play a key role in fair access and had not been strengthened their role in higher education could not have been reduced. He concluded that Scotland's record on fair access would be much diminished if it was not for colleges. I have already heard that 40 per cent of those who are studying at university from the most deprived backgrounds started their learning career in colleges. That is a significant success. I did say at the start that we should not shy away from current challenges. We need to be frank about the financial challenges facing the sector. I was deeply disappointed to put it mildly that the £26 million announced last December for colleges in their budget had been withdrawn, deeply disappointed to put it mildly. That is also, in some respects, a red herring. That £26 million was for one year only, it was non-recurring. College's work is a three-to-five-year budget. I would have great scepticism about any college principal saying that that £26 million means less courses and more redundancies and more challenges on pay, great scepticism. However, had that £26 million been put in the core settlement for each and every year, I have no doubt that some of those challenges would have been much easier to cope with. We should not deny that those challenges exist. Also on articulation, Presiding Officer. With course rationalisation, will that impact on our ability to get that 75 per cent articulation target? On widening access, I am concerned that the very expensive work that colleges do outreach in communities is some of the things that might fall by the wayside when they try to tighten their belts with budgets. We have to make sure that, on articulation and widening access, we do not go in the wrong direction. Finally, why is it that colleges providing the exact same SVQ level of course in colleges get far less money to do so than universities do? That was accepted by the funding council that it had to be addressed and they are looking at it. My date in concluding, minister, my concern is that to address that inequality would cause an eye-watering financial burden on government to fill that gap. I am not looking for that gap to be filled in the immediate future but I do want incremental progress for colleges because it is simply not fair. There is a lot of good progress with college rationalisation but we should not be blinded to the current financial challenges of the college sector and the current climate. In the last session of Parliament, I developed a pretty close working relationship with the unions representing staff in our colleges. At the last election, I committed to them that I would advocate for a parliamentary inquiry into the situation in the college sector, specifically looking at industrial relations and the significant breakdown in relations between unions and employers. Although that report did not focus exclusively on industrial relations, quite rightly, colleagues across the committee had other priorities in its very well-rounded report. I am pleased that the inquiry took place and that college staff had the opportunity for their voice to be heard via their union representatives. I am particularly delighted that one committee member was so enthusiastic about the report that he raised straight back into government to deliver on its recommendations. I want to focus my contribution particularly on industrial relations. National bargaining was moved towards in the college sector concurrently with regionalisation, though not exactly the same process. It was a major step forward. Our college lecturers are now well paid and that is a credit to them and to their trade union. There is sometimes a tone that creeps into discussions about college lecturers' pay that gives the impression that some people think that they should be apologetic for what they and their union have achieved. I do not think that they should be. I think that they should congratulate themselves for that. However, in this sector, we have seen national strike action in seven of the last eight years and I do not think that that would have been tolerated in most other sectors of our society. We have had three lessons learned exercises but clearly the lessons are not being learned. There is something deeply broken here. There is a question of the extent to which that is about culture and interpersonal relations in the national negotiating framework, whether it is about that framework itself, the structure of the NGNC. The only achievement of the NGNC beyond annual pay negotiations so far is a new menopause policy. It is a very good policy and I recommend it to other sectors. However, that is so much less than what was aspired for when that national structure was set up. I have heard that there have been recent improvements in the relationships between the two sides in the NGNC and I certainly welcome that. However, one of the key issues that we have had over many years is that agreement is reached in the room only for both sides to leave the room with radically different understandings of what that agreement was. Given that and the recommendation from the lessons learned exercise of an independent chair, we do now need to move towards that. I recognise that, for a lot of my colleagues in the union movement, there is significant reluctance there but we need to break that impasse around different understandings of something that both sides had apparently agreed to. The current lessons learned exercise should certainly be the last. I understand the Government's reluctance to get involved but I think that robust intervention is needed here. Not last minute cash, if we are to subscribe to everything in the lessons learned exercise, that is one of the clearest recommendations that the Government undermines it. I was more guilty than most in the last session of Parliament for demanding that the Government intervene at the last moment with additional cash. I realise that there is not additional cash to go round at the moment. I would appreciate if the minister could lay out, though, when the Government expects to respond to the lessons learned exercise, recognising that the delay that has taken place so far is not with the Government's end, it is with the Government receiving submissions from both sides. I am very grateful to Ross Greer Giveway and indeed within the committee's report at paragraph 398 it talks about the responsibilities of various parties with regard to this and highlights the role that the Scottish Government should play in it. Would you agree with me that one of the roles of the Scottish Government is both in improving the relationships between two parties but also in essence facilitating that actual understanding of what the agreement is? I welcome that intervention. I think that that is key. I have at various points in the last couple of years, mooted with union and with the college employers, what the consequences they believe would be if we moved towards a tripartite system of negotiation like what we have for teachers. Both sides and the Scottish Government have significant reluctance about that for obvious reasons. I understand that, but I think that an independent chair appointed by the Government but with the agreement of both sides would help with that collective understanding. I want to use my remaining time to focus specifically on the situation at City of Glasgow College where there are plans for 100 compulsory redundancies immediately off the back of a large voluntary severance process. The staff at the college and I have repeatedly raised concerns about the consultation process. We do not believe that the 45 days statutory minimum is adequate enough and I certainly welcome the minister's letter to college principals reminding them of their fair work obligations in this space. The union's request for an extension has been rejected. I am particularly concerned about scrutiny. There are 18 individual business cases making up those 100 redundancies and they have not been individually considered by the college board just what has been described to me by the principal as a quantitative consolidation, i.e. a summary. I do not think that that is good enough. What could be a more significant decision for a college board to make than 100 compulsory redundancies? I have circulated a motion to MSPs urging colleagues to support calls for the board to scrutinise each individual business case before they make that decision. The other element of my motion is the proposals that alternative savings put forward by the EIS-FULA union. It is hard for a staff to face redundancy at a college with a large, well-paid and multi-layered senior management team, with a principal as one of the highest-paid public sector officials in Scotland and with posts like an executive chef. The staff alternatives need to be taken seriously. I am concerned that they are only going to the board via senior management, who have a clear conflict of interest, given that the staff's proposals include compulsory redundancies among the senior management team rather than among front-line lecturing and support staff. I hope that an unfiltered version of that report will be tabled, which the senior management team has every right to respond to. That points towards wider issues of college governance and a perception amongst the workforce. Many colleges are private fiefdoms of their principles and insufficient scrutiny. Parliament needs to accept some responsibility. We are ultimately responsible for scrutiny of the public sector, but the boards exist for a reason. I am glad that we are moving towards mandatory trade union representation on boards. I pushed for that, but we need to consider going further. In a way, we will go back to the future and consider appointing local councillors to college boards. Colleges should be rooted in their local communities. I think that councillors who are appointed by the local authority, rather than the board chair and principal, would be able to offer a level of robust scrutiny that a number of our college boards would certainly benefit from. Our colleges are doing transformational stuff, and their staff and students deserve a lot of credit for that. They are doing it under immense challenges, some new but most well-known. The weather report and the committee report together give opportunities to address those challenges, even with a financial situation that is unlikely to change. I hope that we seize that opportunity. We now move to the wind-up speeches. There is absolutely no time in hand. I call Martin Whitfield up to six minutes. I am very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer, and for the guidance with time in hand. Can I open by, first of all, thanking the committee, the clerks and the witnesses for the preparation of what is an excellent report? It speaks volumes to the tenacity of the education committee to get and starts to unpick one of the most complex webs that exists within, if we just take the phrase, education sector across Scotland. Many of its conclusions are very broadly welcomed. As the Labour Party, we welcome this detailed investigation. It is essential that the Scottish Government learns lessons from it, because Scotland needs its colleges. It needs colleges that are financially sustainable and can deliver for our students. We are very welcome to change an approach from the current Minister with regard to reaching out across the chamber to seek solutions to this, and indeed to John Swinney to focus on the need for learner-centred delivery, because it is only through learner-centred delivery that we can actually offer to our young people and not so young people who use our college facilities the sort of future that we need of them, but that they deserve from us. I mean some fascinating contributions in this chamber, and I want to try and deal with some of those, rather than dealing with some of the broader strategic measures, as I always seem to fail to give recognition to so many good contributions when I'm burdened with the summing up. So, if Sue Webber would forgive me for what was an excellent opening and indeed Graham Day and Stephen Kerr, I'd like to turn to Willie Rennie's contribution about the question of the mental health challenge, and again reiterate the question that he sought from the Minister about some indication of when the conclusion of the consideration of the funding will take place, because we are but weeks away from the end, we are but weeks away from the termination of employment. And actually, for a relatively small amount of money, the service that those people provide towards our students, and indeed not just students, but the wider college community with regard to mental health, particularly after the challenges of Covid is exceptional. Willie Rennie also made mention of the RSE report, which was indeed mentioned by a number of people, and indeed some of the conclusions then have drawn in from very many of the contributions that we've heard today, particularly the very final conclusion, how important it is for colleges and the SQA and whatever comes after it to work closely together with the other tertiary providers and businesses to ensure that the qualifications are fit for purpose. And enhance the routes and opportunities for articulation, because there is something contained within the Wothers report about the language that speaks to the parity of esteem that our colleges are held in with regard to universities and other ways, and this is an opportunity, it is an opportunity where we can start to make inroads into that inequality of perception that exists. To Ruth Maguire's very powerful contribution, particularly making reference to paragraph 163 about the need for colleges to serve our communities, colleges were historically at the heart of our communities and due to the historic changes there are fewer of them, but the communities that they still served are still there. And I think of the number of young people who struggle with the formal education that perhaps school expects of them when they go to college, they absolutely flourish because they find themselves trusted by people who are there to be with them when they learn, trusted to ask difficult and complex questions. I think this speaks in part to John Swinney's very helpful intervention with regard to the use of technology. I think a lot of what our colleges offer, I think particularly of the practical subjects, are for face-to-face discussion. Don't put your thumb on the vice, don't do this and actually one of the great strengths of our college sector is that they can provide that in a supportive environment that perhaps some young people and indeed older people have not found in other venues. And it talks of the fair access that's required in our unit. I'm grateful to Mark Whittle for giving way. I think from his experience of the education system, the school education system, I suspect he will probably also recognise that for some young people, school may not be working out for them as perfectly as it works out for most young people, but the college sector does work out for them and we should be open to the concept of making sure that young people are in the correct educational setting. I thank John Swinney for that. It is a powerful intervention and there is something that we need to recognise. Fundamentally, in Scottish Government and in Parliament, but actually across the whole of Scotland, one vehicle doesn't fit all and the college sector have offered flexibility. They've offered support to people who were challenged at school, but also who are challenged in their communities to try and measure their own worth and that we should use every vehicle open to us. And as we've heard about with the careers guidance advice contained in here, also open the eyes of our young people to the potential of college. Even though they may be disillusioned with school, there is a different way and it may well be a pest way. I am very conscious of time, Deputy Presiding Officer, but I did want to mention Carol Mocken's very powerful speech and in particular because of the very helpful intervention from the minister about the promise about that guidance and the leadership that has been called on from Scottish Government, which I think we heard in that intervention a promise to give. I am conscious of time, but I do want to welcome this committee's report very much. I do want to welcome the role that our colleges play. They are an essential element in so many people of Scotland's future, be they at school at now, be they in jobs and seeking other skills so that they can retrain for the future and we deserve to give our colleges our full support. I am grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you. Pam Gosell, up to seven minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As shadow minister of further and higher education, I am honoured to close today's debate about the college regionalisation inquiry on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I would like to start by thanking the committee for producing this detailed and much needed report. 10 years on from the college regionalisation, it is vital that we understand how it has been working in practice and examine the position of Scotland's colleges today. As a convener of the cross-party group on skills, I repeatedly see presentations which make it very clear what a big role the colleges play in the coming years ahead, especially towards a greener economy. Before moving on to my own thoughts on the committee report, I would like to take some time to reflect on some of the contributions that we have heard this afternoon. My colleague Stephen Kerr spoke about how important the college sector is to so many different challenges that it faces and how colleges drive social mobility for many young people who might otherwise struggle to achieve this true potential. My colleague Megan Gallacher spoke about the real-life impacts of college cuts and how young people are being told they can no longer take up the college places that they worked so hard for in the first place. My colleague Liz Smith spoke about how many businesses are concerned their employers do not have the right skills and about the role colleges have to play in equipping young people with the ability to harness basic skills. The convener of the committee, Sue Weber, spoke about colleges being chronically underfunded and highlighted how critical colleges are to the success of our economy. Minister Graham Day spoke about the sector having a bright future. However, I fail to see that happening unless the Scottish Government makes some drastic changes with the funding. I hope that he stays true to his word and does engage with cross-party to find the right solutions. Will he really highlight that we need to make drastic changes urgently and provide colleges with those directions now as colleges are making those decisions on courses? Pam Duncan Glancy spoke about how colleges are limited on what they can do with the money that they have. The fear of losing the potential of regionalisation, Ruth Maguire spoke about a local positive example at Ayrshire College on project search, which has done well preparing students for work. Unfortunately, due to time, I could not mention all members' contributions in my speech today. However, one thing that I did hear from all parties across the chamber was the importance colleges play in our economy today, tomorrow and in the future. One of the biggest concerns that we have repeatedly heard about this afternoon has been the financial position that Scotland's colleges find themselves in today. The SNP likes to talk about how vital colleges are to a just transition and to the national strategy for economic transformation, yet they shortchange our world-class institutions at every corner. That is clear from the SNP's recent U-turn on college funding, which removed the equivalent of £1 million from every college in Scotland. Shona Struthers, the CEO of Colleges Scotland, called this decision inexplicable. I cannot speak for other members, but I have received countless emails from students and lectures concerned about the state of Scotland's colleges. One student wrote, The future standards of my education, access to courses, support on every aspect of my college experience is at risk due to these cuts, which will significantly cut the workforce on both the lecturing and support staff side. I don't have enough time, sorry. She then asked me to intervene to prevent the compulsory redundancy of college staff, and I have tried. I have raised this matter on five separate occasions, but it has repeatedly fallen off deaf ears. That is baffling to me because, on most occasions, the Government is merely being asked to intervene less and ring fence lengths. That is not just on my view but is quite clearly reflected in the Wither's review. In his recent report of the skills landscape, James Withers wrote about the unnecessary complexity of the funding streams and the education bodies. He urged the Scottish Government to take a clearer leadership role in post-school learning policy, which we have heard today from many members. The publication of the Wither's review is yet more evidence of the need to streamline the current funding process for Scotland's colleges, because the current system is holding those institutions back. In conclusion, it is clear that, under the current environment, colleges will inevitably fall short of their potential. Buildings falling to pieces, dwindling staff numbers and limited financial flexibility. The SNP Government therefore needs to listen to and engage with recommendations from the committee's report, give our colleges flexibility and the strategic direction that they are asking for, and commit to properly funding our colleges so that they are truly equipped to carry out the vital role that will be asked of them in the coming years. Graham Day Minister, up to eight minutes. There is some terrific stuff happening in our colleges and we should highlight that much, much more. Personally I have been hugely impressed, in particular by the work of the City of Edinburgh College and with the innovative efforts of West Lothian College in the health and outdoor learning areas. Of course, questions about budgets and funding to support colleges and continuing this work are quite legitimate. The Government is operating in a difficult financial environment. Throughout the committee's inquiry we have heard about the financial challenges that have been facing colleges, both are truths. However, as James Withers has acknowledged, there is no lack of investment in the skills in post-school education landscape. The question is how we should best make that work for the learner, the economy and the public purse as we look to the future. The landscape that was configured is not financially sustainable. That makes it a public sector imperative that we must reimagine and reform our post-school education skills. I am working alongside employers, institutions, learners and other partners if we are to ensure that, going forward, we continue to deliver for Scotland as a whole. Let me be clear again, I agree with the gist of what James Withers has said. Billions of pounds are invested in the system annually. With that level of public investment comes a real obligation to make sure that we are getting the maximum bang for our buck for our learners. All that is a need to deliver a sustainable future for our colleges. Throughout development of the purpose and principles for post-school education research and skills, which we will anticipate to publish shortly, we have heard about the adaptability and agility of colleges in responding to the needs of their learners and their local and national economy. Their work with other actors in the system, including employers, sector bodies, training providers and higher education institutions, demonstrates the benefits of collaborative work in providing opportunities that best serve learners. The purpose and principles is about creating a framework to deliver better social and economic outcomes for the investment that we currently make in post-school education research and skills. We work closely with individual colleges, as well as the unions, colleges Scotland, the colleges development network and developing these principles. We know that the sector is ambitious and capable of the reform needed to ensure that we have a post-school education research and skills system that is fit for the future. As I mentioned in my opening statement last week, we published the Withers review. It includes, as we have heard, recommendations that taking together would amount to radical reform of our post-school education and skills system. As I said, I am persuaded of the case that James Withers has made for reform and appreciate that the time to make that change is now. I can also see that the recommendations that he has made chime with those coming through in other works such as the Hayward review and qualifications and development of the purpose and principles. It is important that the approach that we take to implementing change is considered, planned and critically sustainable. I want to focus on contributions from members now. Willie Rennie asked about pay policy in relation to the colleges. The sector is required to pay regard to the public sector pay policy, but it is not directly bound by it. I recognise, regrettably, that compulsory redundancies may be unavoidable in some circumstances, but in my letter to principals and chairs last week, I reminded them of my expectations around the approach that they should take to that. On the wider point, I noted his carefully chosen words around funding. I know that he will recognise that you cannot spend money over and over again. The teachers pay settlement has placed additional pressures on the education budget. There is no money available to put into colleges without cutting elsewhere. I know that Mr Rennie, with his genuine interest in the subject, would not be favouring cuts around tackling the attainment challenge or early years. Another point that Mr Rennie made was about the student mental health plan and the ways in bringing it forward. Let me take part of the responsibility for that. I am anxious that we have what we bring forward that is absolutely deliverable and does not place unreasonable demands on the colleges and universities. As part of all of this, we are taking a little bit more time to test the proposals with stakeholders. I would rather take that a little bit more time and get this right rather than not. I do appreciate the minister's efforts on that. I am still confused about the no compulsory redundancies policy, because I thought that was a hard line for the Government. I think that they said that any public sector worker would not face compulsory redundancies. Now that seems to be different. Why is that? Mr Rennie is conflating two things, as I have just explained. I move on to the issue about the Glasgow regional board, because Pam Duncan-Glancy highlighted this very eloquently. Both she and Willie Rennie called for its abolition. The future of governance in that region is a live consideration. Recently, last week, I met Jane McCusker, the chair of the regional board, to hear from her perspective. I have already heard the perspective of members. I understand the arguments around the cost-saving and reducing bureaucracy, as it is seen. There is a view that this is an additional and unnecessary level of governance. I have to say that such a move would bring the requirement for legislation, so it is not an immediate action that can be taken. I have to say also, as minister, that if this is where we go, I would want to be confident that an appropriate level of oversight was in place in Glasgow. I do not have time. I think that Stephen Kerl talked about the statistics and the unfair picture that is painted of our colleges. I entirely agree with that, as he knows. The SFC is carrying out an in-depth review of the statistical publications and background to this, which will conclude by the end of 2023. There is some other work going alongside that. I should say to him gently that it was my predecessor who launched this. He is encouraged now by me, but it was my predecessor who was maligning on fairly earlier on. Ruth Maguire, not for the first time, has raised the issue about flexibilities. She is right to do so, but I hope that she will appreciate that we are still in a space where the Scottish Government and colleges in Scotland are working up ideas and talking these through. It would be wrong of me today to highlight some of those, but I give her and the chamber the assurance that we, as a Government, are going into this very open-minded with a view to see what can be done in the very short term and beyond that. Looking at that, not just in the resource space, but looking at the possibility of how we might address some of the capital issues, particularly in relation to addressing net zero. Liz Smith made a very telling and considered contribution, particularly around withers. I agree with her that the points that withers make are very valid, particularly the ones that she highlighted. However, I hope that she will also understand that I want to take a little bit of time on those recommendations, because we have to get this right. It is a fantastic opportunity to reimagine this landscape, and we need to be sure that we are doing the right thing. Bob Doris highlighted another point. It is something that, from the evidence that the committee took, has stayed with me. That was the issue about the difference in funding between colleges and universities at SCQF level 7 and 8. I have asked my officials with the Scottish Funding Council to examine the issue and to come back to me with advice. There will also be opportunities as we consider how we will respond to the recommendations in the withers review through and through the purpose and principles to ensure that the funding model across the system is administered to take better of account of those issues. Bob Doris is right. The costs around that are extremely substantial, but I think that he makes a valid point. The minister is just about to conclude. On Ross Greer's point about an independent chair for Glasgow, it is an option for us to consider and will be considered in due course. I call on Ben Macpherson to conclude on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee up to nine minutes. It is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the committee to close this debate. As someone who joined the committee after the publication of the college regionalisation inquiry report, it has been very insightful and I am very grateful to have listened to colleagues this afternoon. I pay tribute to all colleagues on the committee, those previously on the committee, including the minister and a co-cab steward, the previous deputy convener, for their work on this inquiry and also to other members for their contributions today. I joined the convener who spoke earlier in thanking all those who shared their knowledge and experience as part of the inquiry. The committee considered how colleges had been impacted by the regionalisation process and the consequential mergers and how they are performing now. In its report, the committee highlighted the impact of colleges as they deliver on multiple facets of their role, which includes helping to deliver the national economic strategy, providing opportunities for lifelong learning and driving social mobility. I have been interested to hear members' contributions today, highlighting how colleges in their areas and more broadly have been delivering on those three main themes. Commenting on delivering the national economic strategy and using the increased platform that colleges now have concerning economic development in their regions, we heard a number of contributions. For example, Stephanie Callaghan talked about the innovation and creativity. Megan Gallacher talked about how colleges are helping people to fulfil their potential. Will he or any? Is he concerned about the closure of student accommodation at campuses, particularly the one in my region of New College, Lanarkshire, because it has a detrimental impact on young people in rural areas? I appreciate the members raising the issue in their capacity as a regional MSP, however, as deputy convener of the committee. Speaking in that capacity, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment on that regard. Willy Rennie and Carol Marohan talked about how the process of making sure that colleges are accessible for those in rural areas is very important. In exchange, John Swinney highlighted the potential for digital accessibility and digital innovation to be able to help more people to access their learning opportunities. In the other theme, the second one of lifelong learning and upscaling the workforce as institutions of scale responding to their region's business and societal needs and preparing a workforce for jobs within new industries. Many reflected on the James Withers report, including the minister. Liz Smith talked about the importance of local economies, and Pam Gosall highlighted the journey to net zero and scaling up for the green economy. In the third area of social mobility, as a result of successfully widening access to opportunities, including but not limited to higher education, a number of members spoke about that in their contributions. For example, Stephen Kerr highlighted that colleges are a catalyst for social mobility. Pam Duncan Glancy spoke of the success here in Edinburgh with regard to the connections with the universities and between Glasgow colleges and employers. Martin Whitfield talked about the importance of lifelong learning and adult learners. Ruth Maguire talked about fair access and Bob Doris and coherent learning pathways. I'm very grateful to Ben Macpherson to give way on that point, or on a slightly related point. One of the issues that was raised in the report is about the access to data, which was picked up in the Government's response, particularly about free school meal entitlement. Does the committee consider the challenges with that data, given the lack of applications for free school meals, given that free meals are provided for all P1 to P5 in schools? I refer the member to the comments in the report about data, and I will say something about that shortly too, thank him for his intervention. The committee found that the potential of colleges, however, is being impacted by significant and on-going financial pressures and a lack of flexibility both financially and academically. In the cabinet secretary's response letter, she set out flexibilities that the Scottish funding council has put in place for colleges, including lowering the minimum activity thresholds while increasing the cost per credit, so that colleges do not lose funding should they need to decrease their activity. With appreciation to the severe pressure on the public finances, I was grateful to hear the minister's response in regard to the exchange that he had with Pam Duncan Glancy. He emphasised that the process will be shaped by the colleges and the Scottish Government will embrace proposals that come forward from the colleges. I am grateful to Mr McPherson for giving way on the question of the financial pressures, and we all acknowledge the scale of the challenges that are faced not just in the colleges but across the public sector. Does Mr McPherson believe that education committee might be able to consider, in taking forward some of the issues in the Wither's review, how some of the financial challenges might be addressed in a collaborative way using the education committee as perhaps a forum where there can be some honest dialogue about the realities of the public finances with a focus on maintaining the opportunities for aspiring learners in our college system? As a member and a deputy convener, I welcome that constructive suggestion and note that the convener will also have been listening as well as other members in the chamber today. As we consider the work programme for the period ahead, we certainly take forward that constructive suggestion. As I hope, the Government will continue to take forward the committee's report as well as the Wither's report in its consideration. The committee was clear in its report that colleges should have as much flexibility as possible to help them to respond to the challenges that they are facing. While the committee welcomes the Scottish funding council's engagement with their English counterparts to understand the financial flexibilities that English colleges have and how they might be applied in Scotland, the committee stresses the need for urgency in this matter. The committee's report makes clear that strengthening of the college's student associations and the enhancing of the student voice has been a successive realisation, as Bill Kidd talked about. During the inquiry, the committee also heard about the different funding models for student associations from a fully independent model such as that at Edinburgh College, an arms-length model, EG at 4th Valley College and a model that effectively treats the student associations as a department of the college. The committee also heard how the degree of financial independence, or lack thereof, could inhibit how much they could challenge their principles and boards. While recognising that college student associations should have flexibility as to how they are constituted, given the potential for disparity in their ability to challenge their boards and principles, the committee asked the Scottish Government to consider whether minimum standards should be set to ensure that college student associations have appropriate levels of funding and independence to protect their ability to challenge their boards. Sue Weber raised some of those points in her opening, as did Ross Greer in his contribution. As members across the chamber have highlighted, the committee's report strongly supported the work that colleges are doing and celebrated the significant contribution that they make. The committee felt strongly, however, that the data that is currently collected and published regarding completion rates at colleges does not accurately reflect the performance of colleges on indeed the performance of individual students. The committee therefore welcomes that the Scottish Funding Council has initiated two collect students' reasons for withdrawal from colleges and that it will be working with Colleges Scotland and the College Development Network to improve the capture of student withdrawal data in future years to enable publication. The committee heard evidence about the limitations of using postcode-level data, i.e. SMID20, as a tool for identifying disadvantage, and the committee therefore acknowledges the creation of the access data short-life working group earliest this year to improve that. That relates to the points that Martin Whitfield raised in his intervention. Lastly, I would like again to thank fellow committee members and all members who contributed today for their remarks and their suggestions, and thank the Scottish Government for their feedback and reflections. The committee would continue to welcome any further thoughts that the Government has on the report. We should all welcome the key role that colleges play in Scotland and agree that their on-going resilience is of vital importance to Scotland's economy and society.