 Good morning and welcome to the 26th meeting of the Education, Children and Young People Committee in 2022. We have received apologies from the convener, Sue Webber, MSP, and from Willie Rennie, MSP. I would like to welcome Pam Gosel, MSP, who is joining the committee today for the public part of the meeting. The first item on our agenda today is a decision on taking business in private. Can I ask whether members are content to take agenda item 7 in private? Are we all agreed? I see that we are. Thank you. Our next items of business are evidence sessions with Jamie Hepburn, Minister for Higher Education and Further Education, Youth Employment and Training and his officials, who are all joining us virtually today. The first session will inform our college regionalisation inquiry and the second will allow the committee to follow up on issues raised at an earlier meeting on universities. I would like to welcome the minister and the Scottish Government officials, Stephen Patherana, director, advanced learning and science, Helen Webster, deputy director for reform, directorate for advanced learning and science, and Jess Dolan, head of colleges and economic impact. We have a lot of ground to cover this morning, so I would like to invite the minister to make a short opening statement before we move on to questions. Minister, you have up to five minutes. Thank you, convener. Before I address the subject of the matter today, I thank you and the committee for enabling me to participate remotely. I hope that it was a short order request. I very much appreciate it. I promise to try and not make a habit of bursting my ankle and next time hope to be with you in person. It has been over a decade since the Scottish Government announced changes to the college's landscape as part of wider reforms introduced by the Post-16 Education Scotland Act leading to college regionalisation. The subject that we are about to discuss, which I am very happy to appear here to talk about with you. Our colleges are vital not just in the delivery of education but in addressing some of the greatest challenges facing Scotland today. Colleges deliver the skilled workforce for much of Scotland's foundational economy with college graduates becoming electric car mechanics, business owners in the travel and tourism sector, pursuing careers in digital infrastructure, and providing care to people in our hospitals and care homes. To name only a few examples of the excellence in Scotland's college sector excellence, I have been privileged to witness first hand in my many visits to our colleges and experience them. I am sure that it is shared by you convener and other committee members when undertaking their own visits to their own local colleges. Scotland's colleges give those facing the greatest barriers to learning the opportunity to fulfil their potential. In 2021, over a fifth, 22.6 per cent of learning hours were delivered to students with a declared disability, 6.4 per cent of learning hours to those with care experience and 16.3 per cent of learning hours to those in the 10 per cent most economically deprived areas. Regionalisation has brought a number of benefits. Colleges are anchored institutions in their local economies and communities, delivering through visual partnerships with universities, schools, local authorities and businesses in their area. As you have heard directly from the college principles that you have spoken with, that has led to universities and colleges creating clearer progression routes to higher levels of study from traditional articulation models to integrated learner journeys. I recognise the significant impacts of the pandemic. There was very clear adaptability and resilience on the part of students and staff in our college sector and pivoting to digital delivery and the challenge of impacts on mental health and wellbeing. It was a government that will continue to address the legacy of Covid-19 and take on board the lessons as we plan the future. As we continue to move forward from the pandemic, collaborative working to deliver shared outcomes remains essential. Regionalisation has improved the resilience of the college sector, delivering efficiencies and benefits of scale, putting colleges on a better footing to work with more difficult financial realities that are being felt across the public sector. We face significant funding pressures, and we are thinking carefully and creatively to ensure that we continue to deliver to Scotland's learners. I assure colleges that we will continue to engage with them throughout the budget process. Despite the challenges that we face and I do not pretend that they are not any, we are building on strong foundations. The committee in previous sessions discussed the development of the purpose and principles for post-school education, skills development and research. It is about setting the direction for the longer term, aligning and galvanising all actors in supporting reform and continuous improvements to deliver lasting change for future generations, ensuring that we continue to meet the changing demands of Scotland's learners and our future economy. I also look forward to the conclusions of your inquiry, convener, to help inform our considerations as we move forward. Convener, along with my officials, I look forward to answering any questions that you committee may have for me. Thank you minister for that. I am going to start off as we move into questions. I would expect that most if not all the questions will be directed to the minister however, should anyone else wish to come in on any of the questions, please put a capital R in the chat box. The clerks will be monitoring the chat box and I will bring you in when I can. Thank you very much for that opening statement. I would like to start off with the purpose of regionalisation, which was to remove duplication and unnecessary competition between universities' colleges to enable reforms to meet the current employment challenges and skills challenges and provide a rapid response to that and to create more efficiencies. To what extent do you think that those aims of regionalisation have been achieved over the last 10 years? To a greater large extent, convener, they have been. I think that we have seen a reduction in duplication in course provision. Of course, that delivers efficiencies and benefits of its scale, which in turn positively impacts on front-line delivery for students. I believe that, since regionalisation, we have seen greater agility, flexibility and responsiveness in the college sector to the needs of their learners, to the wider communities in which they serve, to employers in the areas that they serve. We have not only seen a reduction in duplication of course provision, but we have also seen that done on a basis that maintains course provision across geographical areas. I also think that that is an enormous important part of the equation, convener. We have greater clarity in terms of learner paths. We have better collaboration and joined-up activity between our academic institutions, between colleges and universities. For example, we also see greater levels of provision of senior phase school learning in the college environment as well. Those are positive developments, and I think that they were reflected in some of the evidence that you heard from the principles that you spoke with in terms of some of the pathways that were created that they themselves articulated that probably were not possible in years gone by. We also know at the moment that we have pressures on skills and making sure that we can respond to the new skills that are required. We took that in evidence as well. Looking forward in the future, do you think that things are all right just now, or are there improvements that could be made in order to make sure that colleges can respond more rapidly to filling the skills gaps that we have? Undoubtedly, improvements can be made. I do not think that any of us would pretend that there is not still a journey to go in terms of making sure that our institutions can be ever more responsive to the requirements of our society, to the requirements and needs of our economy. The fundamental question is whether regionalisation creates a better platform for that to be enabled. For all the reasons that I have laid out, I believe that to be the case. If I look across the country in terms of the many visits that I have undertaken to Scotland's colleges, I have seen that in action. Back to my visit to West Lothian College, where they had a good tie-up with the Scottish Ambulance Service to spoke to people to transition from various sectors of the economy into the social care sector. For example, I think to my visit to Borders College using its STEMS centre to better support the upskilling of employers' electricians in that area to be able to undertake really important types of activity for the future response to the green skills agenda through the installation of ground source heat pumps, for example. That is the type of activity that is taking place. I believe that what we have done through regionalisation has enabled that to happen, but, undoubtedly, there is still more to be done. I am up for that challenge in all Scotland's colleges. I am finished with the time being, I may come in later, but I would like to bring in my colleague Graham Day. Graham Day, you mentioned the word challenge there. How big a challenge would you accept as being opposed to Scotland's colleges by a flat cash settlement for the coming years? I wouldn't suppose to pretend that there aren't challenges in trying to manage that budget process. That is something that we are going to have to work very closely with college principals, with the wider workforce to try and work our way through. In my opening statement, I have already made the point, and it is a sincere and genuine commitment. I will work collaboratively with Scotland's colleges to respond to that challenge. I must observe that some of the challenges are ones that we have to grapple with right across the entirety of Scotland's budget. If you look at the budget position today, by comparison, when we published the budget in December 2021, we estimate that it is worth £1.7 billion less. That is no small challenge, but what we are committed to doing is making sure that we can, as much as possible, make sure that we are investing in the front line for Scotland's college sector. That is what I am committed to working with them to do. All that is entirely accurate, but looking for solutions to that, colleges are obviously restricted in their ability to generate additional income, no ability to borrow or to hold reserves. Are those areas that you would be prepared to look at, and I think that that takes us into the territory of ons reclassification? The first thing that I would observe is that, to a greater lesser degree, that is out with our hands. We cannot direct the Office for National Statistics to determine how they will classify any entity. We did not ask them to reclassify Scotland's colleges. That was a decision that they took. To be fair, there is a legitimate question as to whether we could adjust the setup of Scotland's colleges and incorporated colleges. Of course, not every college is incorporated, but the vast majority of them are. We could look at that to reconsider that proposition, although, again, there would be absolutely no guarantee that the ONS would not still say that it would be classified as public bodies in terms of its reclassification. My view is on balance, notwithstanding some of the challenges that we have. I think that it is appropriate and correct that we continue to operate with the environment that we have in terms of how incorporated colleges are structured. Something that has been in place for a long time largely emanates from a piece of legislation in 1993, so it predates devolution, let alone this administration. On balance, that is the correct formula in terms of the relationship that we have with them being largely publicly funded. What I have committed to doing in response to the SFC review on sustainability is to look at whether there can be further flexibilities to try and help colleges to better enable some of those challenges. That is something that we are committed to doing, and we are looking at that with the SFC. It is something that I have committed to College of Scotland to look at on an expedited basis, because I know that they are looking for those things in full or short order. We are going to put you on the spot. You are talking about dealing with that on an expedited basis. How quickly would you get to the point where you had identified whether there were flexibilities available to you to offer colleges and whether you would be prepared to make that offer? There are already some flexibilities being extended in terms of some latitudes for colleges in meeting their credit targets without clawback being implemented by the Scottish Funding Council. Right now, in the event that we have, we can operate some latitude, we can operate some flexibility. The question that has been posed is whether we can go further. I am committed to looking at that. It might be possible that there is something that we can do in this current financial year, but certainly looking ahead to the next financial year, I think that it is something that would be. Sorry, I should say academic year, of course, Mr Day. This academic year, we will look at it, but certainly in the next academic year, I believe that there might be more that we can do. Thank you, minister. Thank you, Graham Day. If it is all right, I would like to stick with Graham, because he wanted to explore a wee bit further on the ONS classification. Possibly Ruth would come in on that. I am content with the answers. I have heard a wee bit. You are content with the answers on that. Okay, okay. What are the other flexibilities? What are the current set of flexibilities that have already been offered to the colleges? What has he worked with his officials in terms of a main view of possible further flexibilities? Could you be quite specific about that? Frankly, it would be good to get that out in the public realm. One of the things that there has been a request, Mr Kerr, from Scotland's colleges, is whether or not we need to have such a level of credit-based provision by comparison to some increased latitude in enabling colleges to be more responsive to things that emerge in terms of employer demand locally. That is something that I am committed to looking at. Can I earnestly and honestly say that we have landed in terms of where we might end up on that point? No, I can't, but we also have a good foundation in terms of learning how that could look like. If you look at the Flix Workforce Development Fund, for example, that has been done in such a way that it enables employers to have a more direct relationship to draw down funding to be quite responsive to their specific requirements. If you look at the national transition training fund that we put in place, that enabled colleges to respond very flexibly. If you go back to the point that I made in response to the convener's opening questions, I talked about the West Lothian College example in terms of the work that they did with the Scottish Ambulance Service. That was drawn down through the national transition training fund resource. There is a basis in which we can be informed by the decisions that we might take. I suppose that the point that I would make is that we are actively engaged with Scotland's colleges to discuss further and to see if we can land somewhere that might enable them to exercise some more latitude in terms of the public resource that we provide them with. That would be demand-led apprenticeships? I am trying to work through what you just said, because I did not quite grasp it. Are you saying that there would be more demand-led apprenticeships so that local businesses could, as it were, have cash following their apprentices into the college system? Hugh Hall, the principal of Fife College, was very specific about that, and he is evidenced to us. He said that there were constraints on bureaucracy, for example that were obviously costly in time consuming and resource consuming. Could there be a reduction in the constraints on bureaucracy that Hugh Hall refers to? Could there be some latitude in terms of borrowing? Could colleges borrow in order to support their expansion to fulfil local demand, as you have just described? What is your response to those questions and comments? There are also a few things there, Mr Kerr. In terms of borrowing, that is something that we will actively look at and consider. There are some constraints on ONS classification, but, if there is something that we can do, we will consider it. In terms of issues around bureaucracy, that can often be a loaded term. I think that you will agree, Mr Kerr, that it is appropriate that we make sure that public resources are accounted for, but I certainly do not want anything to be overly burdensome on a basis that is not required. Again, if there are specific propositions on how we can fulfil our requirements, our fundamental requirements, to account for the public purse, but on a basis that might not be felt to be as burdensome for Scotland's colleges, then, of course, I am willing to consider that. That would require a specific proposition. In terms of your first question, I do not think specifically in relation to apprenticeships necessarily. We have, by my estimation and by my view, a well-established and successful model for delivering apprenticeships, which derys from the relationship that Skills of Scotland has with the providers at contracts of which Scotland's colleges are involved. However, I was thinking more in relation to things such as how colleges can respond to the requirements of existing workforce. Clearly, any apprentice who is recruited is ordinarily a new entrant to the workforce or, at the very least, someone who might have been in the workforce who might be the initial experience of work-based learning. What we now need in terms of being responsive to the various social and economic imperatives ahead of us in terms of demographic change, in terms of the need to respond to the climate emergency, we need to make sure that we are upskilling existing members of the workforce so that they do not fall out of the labour market with all the consequential challenges that might entail. How can we make sure that colleges are ever more responsive to that requirement? It is kind of that territory, I think. I also know, for example, that Mr Doris will doubt that he has questions for me as well, but I want to take a very good visit with him to Glasgow Kelvin College. I know that Ms Callaghan has had an interest in that as well in terms of community learning and development, so can we facilitate more of that type of activity as well? Those are all the things that we are considering right now. We will now move on to, in fact, Bob Doris. If you are a student at Glasgow Kelvin College or another college minister and you are doing social science, HNC, qualification free at level 7, put my teeth in there, convener, or you do that as the equivalent of an undergraduate first-year social science course at university, why do you get more funding for that student going to university than you get for that student going to college? First of all, I think that we should say, convener, that Mr Doris and I did not plan that in terms of me taking him up for a question that was a matter of coincidence. The arrangements that you refer to, Mr Doris, are fairly long-standing and reflect that provision in different environments does not necessarily look precisely the same, so some of the overheads that you will see in Scotland's universities might not be reflected in the same way as you see in some of Scotland's colleges. You might, for example, see a greater range of lecturers and tutors involved in the experience of university student by comparison to a college student. We see some of the same interaction in terms of funding per head for school pupils as well. In terms of that question, it is driven by a lot of these factors now. There is a legitimate question to say whether or not we have got the balance right. Those are things that will always be willing to be considered. However, in terms of the background, that is effective for what drives that. I will help to answer. Minister, I have raised this with you in the chamber before as well. I was falling through a question more generally. I deliberately picked social science because there is no lab overheads there or significant infrastructure overheads. It is young people interacting with the lecturer or tutor. I do not see whether the additional cost for universities would be unless one is social science degrees to cross subsidise other activities at university. I understand that the average student reimbursement rate for colleges is £5,054. It is £7,550 for universities. That is quite striking. When I raised this in parliament with you, minister, you said that these matters were being discussed in on-going dialogue. Not just that, I should quote that out with the Scottish Funding Council College of Scotland and the University of Scotland. Is there any more detail that you can give me on how those discussions are going? No, there is nothing specific. I can say beyond clearly that these are matters that will always remain their consideration. I should go back to the point that I have made already, of course. I think that that point has been made in evidence to you by College of Scotland. They weren't looking for universities to get less necessarily. To do that on that basis, that would require additional resource. I would go back to the point that I have already made around where we are in terms of the budgetary position right now, which is that the Scottish Government budget today is worth around £1.7 billion less in real terms than it was when we published it in December 2021. That said, it is in common with us to always consider these things and we will continue to make it under review. Can you keep it under review? I absolutely accept that. When I raised it in parliament, I did— You could make that brief, because I have other members who want to come in. Finishing off the line of questioning, which I think is important, convener. I did caveat when I asked this in the chamber about we cannot use magic money to address that funding gap, but there is a direction of travel and there is an aspiration and there is a policy where you can start to see that divergence end and work towards it. Given the fact that 43 per cent of young people from the most deprived areas in universities at the undergraduate course started their career at colleges, we can see the fantastic work that colleges do that I would not want to put at risk. As a direction of travel, as in when resources arrive, minister, do you think that it would be desirable to start to close that gap? I think that we need to be led by the evidence. I will go back to the point that I have made already. It would need to be on the basis of what the comparative overhead requirements are and I take the point that Mr Doris has picked up a very specific course matter. We have not, with a few exceptions in terms of what we call protected subject matter, which is primarily the medical courses that are delivered to universities. We do not tend to put in any distinction between what the type of specific courses might be, not least because we largely rely on our institutions to determine what that provision might be, and we would not want to create any sort of perverse incentives in terms of offering differential contribution rates depending on subject matter. Notwithstanding that point, I understand the point that Mr Doris is making around the comparative overheads not necessarily being that different between some courses. However, in terms of the overall position that would need to be evidence-led, what would the necessity be beyond my understanding on a general basis that the sector is under financial pressure and would be desirous for them to have more resource, but what the rationale would be for doing it on the basis of looking at it in terms of cost per head? Can I just bring in Steven Patherana online? Steven will be followed by Pam Gossel, who would like to come in on a supplementary. Thank you, Steven. Thank you. I just wanted to add to what Minister was sharing with you there and specifically in response to the question around the social science degree example. That is fundamentally that, while the overall funding levels for universities are higher on average in colleges for the reasons that the minister explained, there is differentiation within that in terms of the way SFC funds different types of courses in universities. Social sciences and arts courses, broadly speaking, are funded at lower rates, which are probably more comparable to the rates in colleges anyway. There is a lot of nuance and complexity in the system that the SFC deals with, and it is not just looking at the average figures, it hides a lot of that. Thank you for that. I have had a request from the committee that if we could get the data on that, that would be extremely helpful. Thank you. Pam Gossel. Thank you, convener, and good morning, minister, and the officials as well. My question is on the back of Bob Doris's question in relation to closing the gap. Not only do we see that there is a gap between colleges getting less and universities getting more per student, but also if you go on to schools, the improvement service benchmarking framework shows that the average gross spend per pupil in Scotland in 2020 to 2021 was 9,273 per child for preschool education, and then for primary school it was 5,916, and then per pupil at secondaries it was higher, up to £7,657. I just want to ask the minister that why is it such comparisons between colleges that are so lower compared to the universities and then compared to schools? Are they worth any less if pupils at school are more and universities are more and colleges are less? I have tried to answer that already, Ms Gossel. To a greater large extent, that is driven by the experience of learning and teaching. A school pupil will come into contact with many more teachers than a college student might with powers to lecturers or instructors that inevitably leads to a higher unit cost per head, if that is the way that you want to look at it. In some senses, we are not really comparing like for like, because the experience of education between each phase of a person's journey through education is different. There are different drivers in terms of the costs involved. That is largely what drives the differential. To express that in terms of whether that means that we value one part of the system less by comparison to the other, no, frankly, it is not. It is just a reflection of the reality of the overheads involved by and large. What I have said in response to Mr Doris is that we can always look and keep things under review. That is something that we will look to do, but, again, you might hear me say that quite a lot today, Ms Gossel, because it is frankly the reality that we are grappling with, is that the budget, as we have now, by comparison will be published in December 2021, is worth £1.7 billion less. I am all for people making positive suggestions as to a redistribution of resources. That is fine, but if people make that suggestion, they better be prepared to come to me and say how we are going to do that. I believe that Michael Marra wanted to ask a supplementary on this section. I suppose that I would ask the minister to reflect on what we are hearing from the sector more directly. He makes the argument that this is really about overheads. It is more expensive to educate a student at the university than at a college. Does he recognise the feeling in the college sector that they are very much treated as the poor relations in your portfolio, not just in comparison to universities but in comparison to schools? That is not just in the rate of money per pupil. It is also, for instance, in the capital budget and the complete absence. I have principles telling me that they are ashamed of the condition of their buildings because there is no money to invest in that. We can look at those numbers, but do you understand that that is how the leaders and the teachers in colleges feel? I recognise that it is being said. I have heard that said to me directly. It is certainly not my opinion, it is not my view that colleges are second rate or second class by comparison to any other element of our education system. I believe that we have a continuum of educational provision in each element is as important as the other through the early years, through the school experience, through community learning and development, which I will be candid. I am sure that you have heard as well, Mr Marra, who will also say some of those things through colleges and universities. It is certainly not my perception that I have gone over in some detail in relation to— Minister, if I can, what you are telling us is that your understanding has not been reflected in your decisions. You are saying that you have that sympathy, but you are the person in charge. You are making those decisions, your setting priorities. You have to be able to defend that differential, don't you? I have laid that out. There is a reason for the differential. I have set that out. I have answered that on more than one occasion now. On the point that you are making about capital investment, those are issues that I also understand. One of the challenges that we have right now is that we have a college estate that, in many parts of the country, is maturing at the same age, so that brings precious to bear. On what we are doing going forward, I know that this was something that the committee explored with Karen Watt when she was giving evidences. We have asked the SFC to bring forward an estate strategy. That is something that I am looking forward to receiving, because that will inform how we respond to some of the challenges. I do recognise and understand existing out there. We will seek to be responsible for that. Mr Marl will be aware that there has been a significant uplift in terms of the capital that we have allocated to Scotland's colleges this year for the very precise reason that we recognise that we need to renew our college estate. We are going on to a set of questions led by Michael Marra. He may wish to come back on that. You are going to go on to talk about completion rates, but you may have a follow-up there. My understanding of the significant uplift that Mr Hepburn refers to is essentially one project. A very valid and worthwhile project in Fife in terms of the college investment strategy for this year. Perhaps, if he feels that there is another wide amount of money that we have not seen, he could write to us and tell us where it is, because I do not really see it. No, Mr Marl, let me come back on that, because I am not actually understanding what you are making, are you suggesting that it is illegitimate for us to invest in that project? That is something that we are doing. It is the type of response that you will see from the Scottish Government to invest in Scotland's college estate. We have seen it in the recent past. If you look at the first-class facilities that we see at Forth Valley College, for example, I am not sure that Mr Marra has had the opportunity to visit them. They are first-class. That is a direct result of the investment by this administration. I am still reading the final proposition for the infernal learning campus. We are committed to investing in Scotland's college estate. I will go back to the point that I have made already. There is significant constraint on public resource right now. That does not just go for our revenue budgets. That is also the case for our capital budgets, as well. He will also understand that it is under further pressure as a result of things like inflationary pressure. It is clear if I can convey that. Mr Marra wants us to invest more in this area. I am more than willing for him to come forward with suggestions as to where that money can come from, but we are committed to investing. Thank you, minister. That is the type of action that you will see from this Government. Thank you, minister. On Mr Marra's representation of what I said, I said that it was a very welcome project in Fife. The minister referred to an ageing infrastructure across the country ageing at the same rate, and then said that he was making significant investment. Actually, they are funding one project, so I am going to move on from that area. It is a worthwhile project, and I said that very clearly, minister. I want to ask you about completion rates. We have heard in the course of our inquiry that a number of people are worried about completion rates in Scotland's colleges. I wonder whether you are concerned with the rate of completion of courses for students in Scotland's colleges. I would like to see them improved. I would certainly agree with that proposition. I suggest that we have seen some disruption, inevitable disruption in the past couple of years as a consequence of Covid-19. We are seeing recovery from that. That is very welcome. Of course, I would like to see higher levels of completion rates. I would suggest that we still see very positive outcomes in post-study destinations, and that is very welcome. Of course, I would like to see higher levels of completion rates. That is something that I am very committed to working with the sector in terms of how we can improve on that. What are you doing to make that happen? I would engage directly through SFC, with colleges in Scotland, directly with colleges themselves to see— Can you tell me anything specific that is not about engagement? I will allow me to answer any questions that you have. I am all for robust discussion and scrutiny, but two people talking at the same time is not helpful to anybody at all. Can I take it that you have finished with your bit just now? Mr Marra, did you want to come back on? I will allow you to come back on. We have heard quite a bit about engagement and meetings. I am interested, I think, as other members are, in practical actions. What is happening? If I can illustrate some of that, that would be great, minister. It would be good to hear about what is happening rather than what is in your diary. I would also ask whether the issues of completion should be one of the ways that we are assessing what is happening in our colleges. We had representation from the SFCs, and they were considering that. Completion rates making sure that that was one of the areas that we could have a better understanding of. We all have concerns perhaps about those statistics and how they are provided, but we want to know that it is not just about the number of students going in, but about how many are completing and whether you would make that a condition of widening access. A policy decision that you might be able to take rather than a meeting that you might be able to have? I am sorry to suggest what I was saying. It is just about meetings and engagement that we are having, although we hope that Mr Marra would recognise that it is not unreasonable for me to speak with those who are delivering on the ground to understand how we might go about improving things. In that case, it does not require the odd meeting or for us to take that forward. On the fundamental point that you made, Mr Marra, of course that should be one of the things that we are looking at. Of course, on the widening access journey, a lot of that relates more to the activity. We have a discussion ahead on universities. Of course, colleges are a critical conduit into universities, but it is critical that, as a first step, we get people through the door, but that is not the end of the matter. Where people end up in terms of the experience of education, in terms of the process to qualification and, indeed, where they end up beyond qualification are all vital aspects of the widening access agenda. Probably, despite the robust nature of our exchanges, which I mean always relaxed to have with you, Mr Marra, we are probably as one on that particular issue. I do have quite a few people who want to come in as supplementaries, so I am going to take them in the order that I saw them. Stephanie Callaghan, please, and then Stephanie will be followed by Bob Doris. Bob Doris will be followed by Stephen Kerr, and we will end with Graham. I hope that we can get you all in if you are succinct with your questions. What particular consideration has been given to improving completion rates for students with additional support needs and disabilities, and what impact has regionalisation had on those students? On the latter point, if you look at the participation rate for some of these groups, we have seen progress. That has been welcome. That is down to the fact that our regionalisation process has enabled colleges to be more flexible and more responsive, so that is an important part of what we seek to do. Of course, and it goes back effectively to the same answer that I have just given to Mr Marra. Getting people through the door is only one part of the equation. Is there more to be done in thinking through how we can better support people to make sure that they can complete their journey through the college experience? That is something that remains the on-going subject of discussion with the sector. Do you think that students with ASN, with additional support needs and disabilities, are able to have enough influence on college decision making, for example at college board level? Obviously, those are things that can help to improve the conditions for them and make it more likely that they will be able to succeed in completing them. Certainly from the evidence that I saw that was given to you by the student representatives who came to speak with you, that they perceived the ability for the student voice to be heard in the college environment to be very real. I know that you spoke with Michael Cochran from West Lothian College Student Association, who talked of that, saying that there was the ability to interact, and that, in the College Student Association, it said the same thing. Amy Monks at Dundee and Angus College Student Association talked about that in relation to the ability to influence service design methodology. I know that there was a positive impact in relation to the organisation of student associations as a consequence of generalisation. Many of the pre-existing smaller colleges did not have that infrastructure at all. I would expect that every college to be ensuring that the student voice is heard is expecting to be reflecting on how the student body is constituted to make sure that every element of it is heard, going back to the point that I made earlier, in relation to who Scotland's colleges are supporting. Over a fifth of learning hours in 2020-21, the students were declared disability, and that is a substantial proportion of the student body. Of course, their voice should be heard. Have I had any suggestion that was not being made? That is something that I would have no hesitation of picking up. Minister, we heard from—in fact, it was Glasgow, Kelvin College, Derek Smith and others at the committee—that there was concern over how we estimate completion rates in Scotland's colleges. For example, a young person starts the course for a few days, does not like it, switches another course and that may be a non-completion, or gets offered a well-paid job in a sector that they are already trained for, that is a non-completion. It might be a very different way of gathering the statistics in Scotland than there is in England, and I think that Audit Scotland has already raised those concerns. Although I absolutely agree with you that we want to improve the current levels of non-completions, we need to make sure that we reflect on a consistent basis on what is happening in colleges and make sure that what we are measuring is positive outcomes and not arbitrary data that might not actually be relevant. Is that something that you would take on board? That is right. In two senses. First of all, the comparison with England has to be viewed with caution because it is measured very differently. The sectors are also very different in terms of Scotland's colleges delivering far more higher education than English colleges do. I would always be cautious about drawing conclusions as a consequence of comparison, but there is absolutely a legitimate question. It is something that we need to consider in terms of what we view as a completion rate. Derek Smyll has articulated that quite clearly when we visited the college. That was something that he discussed with us. It is something that I am more than willing for us to continue to reflect on. I will bring in Stephen. As well as that, we need to be cautious about how I say this, because we absolutely want more students to complete their course. In many instances, students are not completing because they are moving on to another positive destination. We also need to be cautious about drawing the conclusion that non-completion is equal to failure. That is not the case. Can we better reflect on that in terms of how we monitor and measure things? Yes, I think that we probably can, and that is something that we need to reflect on. That is Bob Doris's whole point, minister. We do not know why those figures are being reported the way they are. Why cannot we drill down and find out the details at line level? As a minister, surely you are exercised by the fact that we have got this reported number, which everyone says that that is not the real number? Why is this still going on? Why is this not fixed? Why is this not a priority for you and those who work with you? I have not said it at any stage that it is not a priority for me, Mr Kerr. When will we be fixed then? It is one of the things that we are actively looking at. The SFC spoke to you about that. We cannot magically resolve it overnight. It is something that we are looking at. It is something that we are determined to try to resolve on a satisfactory basis. It is trying to get the balance right. I have talked about some of the inherent challenges that are involved in doing so, but we are looking at it. I hope that the committee would know. Sorry, minister. If this was in any other environment, that answer you have given would simply not be acceptable. Reflecting on things and looking at things is not what I personally on this committee would like to hear you say. I would like to hear you say that we are going to get a proper analysis of what the completion rate is, the drop-out rate is. We are going to look at every element, every reason why people apparently do not complete the courses that they register for, and we are going to get that done within the next month. Well, I think that I would be leading the committee history. I think that Mr Kerr knows this very well to say that I will be able to resolve that in a month. Well, how long will it take then? I cannot sit here and say what I can tell you. What is your ambition then? My vision is to do it as soon as possible to try and resolve some of the issues that have been raised by Mr Doris primarily and Mr Marra before him, and now by you, Mr Kerr. I recognise that we can improve those things, and I am committed to doing that. We will look at it. Mr Kerr, that is sufficient. I think that we have explored that as far as we can. I am going to move us on to talking about the college estate. Minister, what is the Scottish Government's response to Audit Scotland's report, highlighting that since 2018-19 college capital funding has fallen by £321 million short of the amount that is required for the life cycle and backlog maintenance? Well, I think that what that reflects is the scale of the challenge that we are trying to respond to, and we have to respond to it on the basis of all of the constraints and public finance that I have referred to. That is not just a challenge in terms of revenue budgets, it is also a challenge in terms of capital allocation as well. What I have asked and I have discharged SFC with doing is coming back to me with laying out a plan to respond to some of those challenges. What are the priorities in terms of the coming period? I know that you spoke with SFC about that. That is something that they are going to take forward. They will then make series of recommendations to me. It will be coming on to the Government to consider them. I recognise the scale of the challenge. It is not something that I am pretending is not there, and there are various reasons that exist. The primary one being by my estimation is that we have a series of buildings that were built around the same time, and as a result of them being built at the same time, they are maturing at the same age. I will go back to the point that I have made in response to Mr Marra. We have a track record of investing in the college estate. We have already laid out the commitment. Mr Marra was right to refer to it as one project. I was not shying away from being one project. It is one very important project, and it is a serious financial commitment from the Scottish Government to continue to invest in and improve the college estate in Scotland. However, in terms of how we respond to the significant challenges ahead of us, that is something that I am looking forward to the SFC informing, and then we need to consider how to respond to those recommendations. Do we have a timescale on that? I am looking forward to providing that next year. Can I follow up on that? What support the Scottish Government is offering to colleges to achieve their net zero targets? That is all part of the same equation. To do that, realistically, that is going to require capital investment, and we are not going to pretend otherwise. Again, I expect that to be part of the considerations of the SFC report, and that would inform the decisions that we take. I would like to move on now to Ross Greer, who is going to hopefully lead a few questions around staffing. I would be interested in your thoughts on the level of pay in Scotland's colleges, specifically at senior management and principal level. Is it justifiable that there are multiple college principals in Scotland who earn more than the First Minister? I think that that is something that colleges themselves would have to speak to and justify. We do not direct, we do not dictate, we are not involved in the process of pay settlements in the college sector. I think that it is right, though, and you will see that reflected in our own public sector pay policy, that where particularly we are dealing with constraint and public finances, those who are at the bottom of the salary scale should be prioritised ahead of those at the top of the salary scale, if I can put it that way. I would certainly agree with that sentiment, but if you look at salary or pay growth within the sector over the past 30 years, senior management, particularly principal pay growth, has completely outstripped by a huge margin that of lecturers or support staff. I appreciate, minister, that you shared with the committee the lessons learned report that Strathlink has recently completed, but I have a distinct sense of deja vu reading it. In fact, they note in their report that the most consistent theme is about the crushing lack of trust that there is between the parties and the NGNC negotiations. They refer to it as a debilitatingly low level of trust. They observed the fact that that conclusion is not new. It was the key conclusion in John Sturrick's similar review that he conducted five years ago. Why has no progress been made on resolving the core issue that is resulting in such regular industrial action? There is a role for us to play in terms of engagement on a constructive basis, constructive engagement with both management and unions. I do that. I am committed to continuing to do that. I certainly perceive it from my position to be a positive engagement with both. I hope that that has felt to be trying to demonstrate some form of leadership and engaging with both parties on a positive basis to try and urge them to come together to negotiate in a similar vein. I cannot drive or determine what the relationships between both parties might be. All that I can do is engage with them on that basis, try and urge them to have dialogue on a respectful basis and the basis of trying to come together to resolve some of the undoubted challenges that exist and where there is a difference of opinion to try and bridge them. I accept that the relation that both the union and college management have individually with the Scottish Government is better than the relationship that they have with each other. Given that the conclusion was exactly the same that John Sturrock came to five years ago, what specifically has the Scottish Government done in that intervening period of time to try and play a constructive role in facilitating a better relationship between unions and management rather than your direct relationship with each of them? What role have you played in this period of time in trying to resolve what John Sturrock concluded about their relationship with each other? In that role that I have talked about is, in itself, a manner of responding to the lessons learned exercise. However, with respect, the lessons learned exercise should be lessons that each party involved has to learn and have to reflect on and have to respond and adjust to. With the greatest will in the world, again, I cannot compel other parties to act in a particular fashion, but I would urge that, just as we have done, we will look at that exercise and reflect on what we might need to do, but so do the other parties as well. I will continue to engage with them on a bilateral basis. I am also more than willing and there are some forums where I will readily concede, not specifically on the subject matter, but there have been some forums where unions and management are in the same room, along with the Scottish Government. That is not me, and I want to be very clear on this. I am not looking for the Scottish Government to become a direct party to pay negotiations. I saw the union perspective on that. The structure is right. It is about making sure that those who are involved in the parties' negotiation can get round the table and have the benefits of the structure that has been established to try to resolve any differences between them. Will the Scottish Government be issuing a fuller response to the exercise, except what you are saying, that it is primarily for the unions and college management to respond to? However, there is a role for Government in their conclusions in relation to the Government. Will there be a fuller response from yourself to the contents of the report? I am sorry if I was not being clear. I was not saying that it was not a primary response on unions and management. We are also a part of the wider process of engagement, and we are also a part of the process of assessment from the lessons learned exercise, so I am not seeking to distance ourselves from that at all. We are a party to the consideration of that report, and yes, we will be responding in fuller detail. Thank you very much, minister. Can I clarify what timescale the committee should expect to see the Government's response on? I do not think that it will be in fairly short order, but I am also keen that other colleagues have the chance to reflect on it as well. Taking on that on board, there are some really good examples. For example, North College Lanarkshire, our new college Lanarkshire—we cannot even get the name right—built really strong relationships and trust right across the team of 1,000-plus employees. That is right through from Janet O'Rail to your teaching staff there. They get food pantries and free breakfasts, so they have really gone about creating that culture of goodwill and mutual respect with a joint focus on prioritising learning. Still, there are very challenging conversations, but, certainly, that makes that a lot easier for them. What further opportunities do you perhaps see the Scottish Government to help to create and ensure good leadership practice, the ideas and the success of the learning, to help colleges to share that right across Scotland's sector? Where any good practice exists, both management should recognise that because they will be involved in that process. I am all for good practice being drawn down a point in from the wider process. Again, where there is a role, where we are aware of such, I will not hesitate to refer to that and point to that as good positive examples for the wider consideration of the whole sector. Do you have any steps that the Scottish Government could be taking to help to create opportunities, more opportunities to share that good practice across colleges? I beg your pardon, Ms Callaghan. I missed just the very start of your question. I apologise. Is there anything that you feel the Scottish Government can do to help to support the creation of further sharing right across the college sector to embed that good practice more widely? Simply put, through the regular dialogue, I am happy to provide details of the frequency with which I speak with Colleges Scotland and all the different unions in the college environment. That is an opportunity for the representatives in the college sector to raise any issue that they want to raise with me, but also for me to reflect on anything back to them. You and others as individual members of the Scottish Parliament want to make me aware of things that should be highlighted. I am more than willing to hear that, and I am more willing to hear it directly from individual colleges and urge others to reflect on it. We will now move on to Ruth Maguire, who will be asking questions around articulation. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. Articulation is an important tool in widening access. Four out of ten SIMD entrants to university come through the college route. In evidence principles told us that this is a reflection of the additional credibility that regionalisation has given colleges. The other figure that we were given was that 58 per cent of articulating students are granted advanced standing, i.e., they go on to the second or third years. One principle said that that is something that he would have said would have been impossible 15 years ago before this, so it is obviously a success. In your mind, is enough being done and what more can be done to encourage further progress? First of all, I very much agree with what was being said to the committee by college principles. I am not just college principles, but you heard from other folk-given evidence from the business community and others saying that similar types of relationship have been established and that might not have been possible in days gone by as well. The figures that you have quoted, Ms Maguire, are a very positive indication of the benefits of regionalisation. I continue to see more being done in that regard. I had a very useful visit to Queen Margaret University recently, and it talked about some of the very clear pathways that have been established in conjunction with various colleges, where a student entering the college environment will understand at the outset that that pathway is available to them, rather than to get their HNC, HND and then they have to think of what next. They are aware at the outset that this is an opportunity for them, and I want to see more of that type of activity. I want to see the sector leading in that. The positive news is that I think that that is happening. I think that that is happening in an enhanced way in a number of locations. Those are exclusive examples, but 4th Valley College is a very good setup with Stirling University in terms of articulation pathways. We see similar with Nescol and Robert Gordon University. There are other examples as well. I would say that I would like to see happening more in that advanced articulation that you referred to, so it is very welcome that we see the numbers that have been referred to, but, frankly, where a person having acquired their qualification at college wants to then go on to university and they can do so entering at the 2nd or 3rd year, I would like to see that happening more than we are seeing just now. That is again to our learning journey activity. It is something that we want to work with the college and university sector on. All that is said, and I think that it is important that you allow me, convener, to make the point, because colleges, yes, have a very valuable means of articulation, but we should also reflect that when someone gets an HNC or an HND, it is a very valuable qualification in its own right and something that should be celebrated. If someone wants to take that and go into the world of work on that basis, that should be celebrated and welcomed as well. Thank you, convener. Following on from that, my colleague Bob Doris has raised in a number of evidence sessions the importance of the work that colleges do for those furthest away from education. I am sure that you have just shown us that colleges are not just for feeding students to universities. That work requires quite a bit of investment, and I suppose that I just graim day covered with you the topic of the flexibility around college budgets. If you would just in principle agree that because some of the more expensive, although it is high value, projects can get cut in times of challenge, it is crucial that, while in the sort of climate that we are in with all budgets constrained and tested, every flexibility is given to public bodies to deliver those important but often costly services to our citizens. That really took me back to the discussion that we had earlier and the response that I gave to Mr David. We certainly made the point that right now we probably could be considering the degree of latitude that we give to colleges to be more creative in the responses to their local community needs. I think that that is a very clear example because, to refer back, you mentioned Bob Doris. I have already referred to the visit that I undertook with him to Glasgow Kelvin College. We saw some really good examples of what I would broadly term community learning and development activity that might not be so much focused on credit-based activity, which is of enormous value because it goes back to the point that Mr Marra was touching on in terms of widening access. That could be the gateway to further study for the people who interact with that type of provision. I view that as very important. I think that it is something that we could support better. That is really taking us into the territory of some of the considerations that we have to give on whether or not we need to provide colleges a bit more latitude in terms of how they use the public resource that we provide for them. Although, of course, I always have to make the point that we still need to account for the utilisation of public resource to demonstrate that it is being used for public benefit. I appreciate those answers. I suppose that I would just say that it feels like the citizens who would use those services are going to be in for a really hard time. A bit of urgency around that would be appreciated. This is something that we are looking at now. It is not a forever and a day type thing. It is something that I was in dialogue with College of Scotland around just last week. We are now moving on to looking at the future. I am going to bring in Bob Doris here. Thanks, convener. Again, it is quite an appropriate progression in the evidence session, because looking at the future of colleges more generally, I want to give a specific reference to Glasgow. When college regionalisation first happened, there was a concern that community-based colleges would be squeezed out in that very localised provision, including the pre-education pre-employability stuff that Ruth Maguire and myself have raised in previous evidence sessions. Regionalisation has not made that happen, minister. There has been a real flourishing of that community-based grassroots development from those furthest away from education to get involved in colleges, including Glasgow Kelvin College. I thank you for the visit that was spoken about. However, there are further reforms down the line. The Scottish Funding Council report, I think that it was last year, spoke about the need for Glasgow's colleges to work closer together. I was concerned at that time that that could mean further merger within the Glasgow region, something that I have consistently opposed. I think that would be a negative thing. The Glasgow Colleges regional board has been described as transactional and a duplication in relation to the Glasgow colleges group, which the principles get together with a senior team in getting with doing that job of delivering for Glasgow and beyond. Can I ask the minister what assurances he can give that Glasgow's three highly successful colleges are secure in their future, that their grassroots work will continue, and that if any reform needed in Glasgow, despite the good work that they have done up to this point, perhaps it is the regional board that has maybe up until now done a good job, but may have served its purpose. It is also worth noting that, given that I know this is lengthy, I understand that the funding council has asked the Glasgow Colleges regional board to decide what future reform we look like, including whether there is a future role for the regional board. That seems pretty unfair on the regional board having to decide potentially on their own future. There is a lot to unpack there, minister. For time constraints, I will not come back in, but I wanted to throw it all in at the same time because I was not sure whether I would get a supplementary on that. There you go, minister. A lot for you to unpack, but I am sure that you are up to it. Off you go. I certainly do my best at my Mr Doris's methodology of asking his supplementaries on one question. I mean, there are a few things at play there. First, in taking the last point, I do not think that it is any certainly not meant to be an unfair process in asking the board to consider various propositions to inform SFC's considerations about what they might recommend to me. Just to be absolutely clear, the regional board will not make any specific decision on what the structure might be, but it is absolutely appropriate that it is asked to consider various issues to be involved in any process. The fairly fundamental question on the one that has been returned to a number of times around guarantees for colleges in terms of Glasgow. All I can guarantee is that I am not driving any particular process of merger in the city of Glasgow. I am not aware of there being one under way at all, so any proposition would need to emerge from the institutions themselves, looking at what is happening in other parts of the country. The United Nations region, for example, colleges themselves are in dialogue. I did not make that request. SFC did not make that request. We want to empower institutions to make decisions for themselves. I can certainly give Mr Doris the reassurance that I am not going to drive that particular agenda. It is important, though, and I hope that it would be agreed that it is not unreasonable for there to be a forum by which the three colleges in Glasgow can have dialogue to make sure that we are maximising the type of provision that will be across the city as a whole. We reduce duplication if there are any gaps in provision that that can be worked through to make sure those gaps are filled between the three colleges. Trying to get that balance right is, of course, appropriate. SFC is considering what the structure might look like in Glasgow. It will make a recommendation to me. It is an appropriate thing to do, because, frankly and candidly, we only have three multi-college regions right now. One, of course, is in the base of also being a university institution, so I think that people understand why that is in place. The other two being Lanarkshire and Glasgow. I think that it is appropriate to consider whether or not that is still required. Pam Goswell has indicated that she would like to come in at this point. Thank you, convener. Minister, I would like to go back to one of the questions that we were asked earlier on, on drop-out rates in colleges. Obviously, we know that colleges have a lot of drop-out rates, and we discussed that earlier on. In relation to that, would the minister think of changing data collection so that when people switch colleges or courses or they transfer to other colleges that it does not count as a drop-out? That was the very point that I was trying to make in response to Mr Kerr, albeit that I was pretty clear that I could not do it within a month. I do not think that that would be a reasonable timescale or one that would do the issue of justice. I think that that is a perfectly legitimate thing for us to consider the issue that you have raised, Ms Goswell, and I am absolutely committed to doing so. Just lastly on this minister, I am speaking to a lot of businesses and colleges are so vital for that skills journey so that businesses can get the right skills. I cannot emphasise enough today as a visitor to this committee that, please minister, I do think about all the questions that have been asked today by all the colleagues that we really, really need to invest in colleges and we really need to help them, whether it is through the capital funding, whether it is pupils. We really need to do much more, and I cannot emphasise enough that colleges have how much they come and speak to me about this and the fact that the funding is being cut. You talked about, basically, earlier on, where to get this funding from. You are the minister, so you should be telling us, to be honest, where you should be looking at, where to make, not cuts, but actually look at where you can move money around and look at the best for colleges, because businesses are really, really crying out for those skills. Let me respond to that with a couple of points there. Of course, I will hear what the committee has got to say. I think that there is a very valuable inquiry and committee to determine what it does at the end of the inquiry. I presume that some form of report will be pulled together with recommendations. I will, of course, give those my consideration. It is just to be very clear with Ms Gosall. She says that the colleges are coming to her regularly for discussion. It might not be a surprise to her to learn that they do that with me, too, so I maintain regular dialogue with them. Just on the last point, yes, of course, as the minister with responsibility for higher education, further education policy amongst the other policy areas, it is incumbent on me to consider how we deploy public resource. I am afraid to say that it is incumbent. We all have a leadership role. We are all elected representatives. If Ms Gosall or any other representative wants to come forward to say that there should be additional resource in any particular area of government expenditure, I would respectively say that we can take that proposition a lot more seriously if it can be identified as to where that resource comes from. Yes, the Government has that primary leadership role, but it is not an exclusive one. It is one for all as elected representatives. After all, the budget process is one that is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Thank you for that minister. We have now come to the end of our time on the college regionalisation inquiry. I would like to not only thank the minister today, but to all those who have contributed to all the sessions that we have had and to colleagues on the committee. We will now move on to our next item of business, which is questions on universities. However, before we do that, we will have a suspension for around five minutes to allow for a change of witnesses. Welcome back. We are now going to have a short session on universities. Can I welcome back the Minister for Higher Education, Further Education, Youth Employment and Training, Jamie Hepburn, Stephen Pather Rhine, director of advanced learning and science. I also welcome Shazia Razak, strategic lead university policy, governance and equalities, and Roddy MacDonald, head of higher education and science division, who are also joining us for this session. As with the previous session, I would expect that most, if not all of the questions, will be directed towards the minister. However, should anyone else wish to come in on any of the questions, please put a capital R in the chat bar. The clerks will be monitoring the chat bar and I will bring you in whenever I can. Members and witnesses should be aware that there is an active case in court relating to the university's superannuation scheme, and therefore the case is subjudice. I would therefore ask members and witnesses to refrain from referring to matters relating to the case. I will now move on to the question session, and we are going to have Graham Day, and I will come in on that as well regarding student accommodation. As you are well aware, there have been some significant but localised issues around access to student accommodation per painting to certain universities this year. When situations like those arise, the extent to which the Government records, monitors and the availability of student accommodation in such localities, and the extent to which dialogue is entered into with the specific universities in seeking to achieve an outcome? Mr Hepburn, did you hear that question? Clearly not. It does not look as though, Mr Hepburn, I believe that the technical team is working on it at the moment. I would like to bring the meeting to a short suspension in order that we may deal with our technical difficulties. Thank you. Minister, can you hear me now? I can hear you now. You may look at me. I couldn't hear the extent. I hadn't even realised the session is starting, but I can see a very confused looking, Mr Day. Right. One minute to go. Thank you. Welcome back. After a short suspension in order to sort out our technical difficulties, I am taking the liberty to repeat the introduction so that we may have a fair start again to this session. Could I please welcome back Jamie Hepburn, the Minister for Higher Education, Further Education, Youth Employment and Training, Stephen Patherina, who is the director of Advanced Learning and Science. Can I also welcome Shazia Razak, strategic lead at university policy, governance and equalities, and Roddie MacDonald, head of higher education and science division, who are joining us for this session. As with previous session, I would expect that most, if not all, the questions will be directed towards the minister. However, should anyone else wish to come in, could they please put a capital R in the chat box, which will be monitored by the clerks, and I will bring you in when I can. Members and witnesses should be aware that there is an active case in court relating to the university's superannuation scheme, and therefore the case is sub-judice. I would therefore ask members and witnesses to refrain from referring to matters relating to the case. We will now move on to the questioning session, and we are starting off with Graham Day, who I may come in on those questions. Mr Day. Good morning again, minister. As you are well aware, we have in recent times had very locality-specific issues with student accommodation for universities. I am wondering about the Government's role around us, perhaps starting off with a position around recording and monitoring the availability of student housing in relation to each university. Thereafter, when an issue arises, what dialogue and what role Government officials have in engaging with these individual universities, in seeking to achieve an appropriate outcome? Of course, I am glad that I can hear you now, Mr Day. I apologise for any confusion that existed before. I do perceive there to be a role for us. It is not the leading one, though. We are not a direct provider of student accommodation. There has never been a role for Government in that regard, and I do not detect any sense that that should change. I am glad to say that it is not of substantial concern to me in terms of my ministerial responsibilities as well. It is something that I have engaged very directly with specific universities around, in particular the University of Glasgow, where there was a widely reported situation. I have a degree of reassurance that they were taking every step that they could to work through any of the remaining issues that they had at that stage. What we are committed to doing is taking forward a student accommodation strategy, which will be informed by the purpose-built student accommodation review that is under way. We recently commissioned evidence from the UK Collaborate Centre for Housing. That is now with us. That will be considered by the purpose-built student accommodation review steering group. We will publish it, and I will be happy to directly write to the committee at the juncture that we do that. We will inform the considerations about what we might be able to do to try to make sure that there is better provision of housing for students. Of course, that is part of a wider challenge in terms of the pressure of availability of housing. I will reflect on some of the work that we have already done in terms of short-term lets, for example, and better enabling local authorities to regulate that market to ensure that there is wider supply of housing for other groups who require it, including students. We cannot take it alone. We have to work with the sector to make sure that they are living up to their responsibilities to ensure that the students that they recruit can be adequately housed. That is something that we will continue to work through with our student accommodation strategy. I welcome the actions that you have identified. Given what we know and what happened this year, how optimistic would you be that this work can be progressed in conjunction with the universities at sufficient pace to hopefully ensure that there will be no repetition for the next academic year? It is a work that is under way. I certainly want to have it substantially advanced in advance of the next academic year. It would be disingenuous to suggest that some of the wider pressures that we are seeing are not going to go away any time soon. If you take University of Glasgow, for example, and I spoke to them, they have plans to increase the number of directly provided student accommodation. That is the type of response that I would hope to see in the sector. I recognise that that is not going to be achieved readily. That requires leading time in terms of planning application, in terms of construction and so on, but that type of activity has to start sooner or later. Of course, our own actions in terms of the student accommodation strategy have to as well. We will be aware that this is a very concerning issue for me regarding my constituency having not only Glasgow University, but I believe that I have eight institutes of higher and further education, including the Open University. That puts particular pressures and can bring tensions between having a resident population but also being very welcoming and accommodating towards students. It is a complicated picture there. I am aware that he has been working closely with Glasgow University as have I. It might be useful for us to understand the bigger picture. Could the minister give us an indication of what the pressures are around student accommodation across Scotland? How does that fit in with the national picture across the UK? I suppose that I am trying to get to the bottom of is this a uniquely Scottish thing? Is it a Glasgow thing, a university town thing or actually are the pressures being felt up and down the country? On the last point, it is going to be particularly acute during the university term. It is certainly not a Glasgow specific thing. There are other locations in Scotland that report similar challenges. It is certainly not a Scotland specific challenge as well. We see similar challenges in other parts of the UK. Manchester is one example that comes to mind. We will see similar pressures in other cities and communities where there is the presence of a higher education institution. It is not specific to Scotland by any stretch of the imagination. What we have to do is to work with other partners to try and respond to that reality and to try to make sure that there is sufficient supply of accommodation, recognising that there are other pressures as well. Each of us represents constituencies in regions where many constituents and students are also looking to be housed and accommodated. Is it a role for us, not as a direct provider of housing, but to set the strategic direction in conjunction with the sector? We will do that through the strategies that I have referred to. I will need to work with other partners as well. I have already referred to the powers of local authorities in respect of short-term regulation and empowered them to do that as well. They also have to consider how to balance the various requirements in terms of their own population and their housing needs. You have referred to some of the tensions that can exist, and I recognise that. That has to be managed carefully by any local authority in ensuring that there is sufficient supply for the various housing requirements that exist in their locality. Thank you, Mr Hepburn. We are just going to move swiftly on to cover university finances, and I am prepared to allow a short session, but I have a wee bit of time on this. Ruth Maguire is going to kick us off, and Michael Marra will come in. Hello again, minister. My question, although it is about university finances, is more from the perspective of the students. You may have been aware that I raised in a former session, and I believe that I have done so in writing directly to myself as well. An example of an educational psychology student who does a work placement with a local authority, and during that placement is not classed as a student, therefore does not have access to council tax reduction or other benefits that the university might provide in terms of welfare fund or childcare assistance. Educational psychologists are obviously a profession that we are pretty short of. I will not go over all the details that you probably would have seen from the former session, but I wonder whether there is anything that the Scottish Government can do in terms of students like those educational psychology students. Of course, there are other professions where a grant is given, I am supposed to be thinking of midwifes and some nurses perhaps, so it may well affect more than that specific cohort. I would be interested to hear your views on that. Some of those are very specific. The example that is provided is a very specific one, and I recognise the importance of recruiting into that profession. Those are quite long-standing arrangements, and they are designed in such a way that any individual should be able to draw down other forms of support that would not be available to them if they were otherwise still classified as a student. What I can say is that I am conscious that it has been raised with the Government. We are, of course, happy to reflect on that, but I would observe that this is not something that has just been recently introduced. It is quite a long-standing arrangement and it is very much designed to reflect the fact that, effectively, for that period of time, the person is not actually in the classroom environment, they are not actually undertaking any form of study out there in the workplace, but, of course, we are more than willing to look at those things. Minister, I suppose that I would probably comment that just because something is long-standing does not mean that it does not need changing. I know that that is not what you are inferring, but I think that it is important to be clear. It feels important because those individuals are studying to do a profession that is in shortage, certainly in the Irish and Arran psychologists, or there is a shortage of them. Educational psychologists in particular, we know that there is a challenge around the demand for mental health support for children and young people. I thank you for noting my comments. Mr Marra will be followed by Stephen Kerr. I am keen, minister, to focus on long-term financial trends and the impact of some of those in the university sector. We have had some exchanges on this particular issue in the chamber already, and the latest REF results, the research excellence framework, would indicate that the rest of the UK universities are improving their performance at a faster rate than Scottish universities. A great set of results for Scotland, but a worrying comparative trend across the UK, and I know that it is shared by the sector. I am keen to get on the record your response to that in terms of what you think about the long-term strategic approach and what that might mean for Scotland. The first thing that I would do, and I hope that all of us would reflect on, is the position that we are actually in in terms of higher education research and development just now. If you look at the percentage of expenditure across public and private resource in terms of higher education research and development, we are ranked seventh amongst OECD countries. We spend as a percentage of our GDP above the OECD average, above the EU 27 average and above the UK average, so it is important that we reflect on that. In terms of what we seek to do, we did increase the baseline grants for university research and innovation this year, so where we can, after we fair back to the budgetary context we are in, which is a very challenging one, but where we can leverage an additional resource, then we will do so. That is a demonstration that we have done so. I would also reflect on the fact that notwithstanding some of the trends—and, of course, I want to maintain the position where Scotland's universities are doing partably better than drawing down the funding that exists for UKRI, for example. We still are outperforming the UK as a whole in terms of population average, so 13 per cent of UKRI research council spend was drawn down to Scotland in terms of the most recent figures, which is well ahead of our population position. I want to maintain that, and that is why, for example, I will engage with UKRI to make sure that I understand how we can continue to do that. That is not being maintained, is it, minister? That gap is closing, so our comparative capture of UKRI spending is declining. You are right that it is a good thing that we outperform the rest of the UK. We make a significant investment as taxpayers into our universities, and we want to see that performance continue, but that gap is closing. Universities tell me that one of the drivers in that is that there is a long term—I understand your points about the short-term budgetary considerations and the real pressure that is under, but there has been no increase in the unit of resource paid for Scottish students to universities in Scotland for 13 years. That is the key driver in terms of the business model that universities operate under. Is there not a long-term issue? I would be keen to get your own personal thoughts in terms of how important this sector is in terms of the economic performance of the country in the long run. Whatever the constitutional settlement is in the future that we may disagree on, but how important this is, and we have to maintain that advantage and increase it. What is being done by the Government to ensure that that can happen? My personal reflection of the importance of the university sector is of the utmost importance in terms of our position of standing in the world in relation to the world-class research that we see across all of our institutions. If you look at the results that Mr Marra referred to a few moments ago, we saw first-class research right across every single institution. That is something that we should celebrate. That is something that we should shout about. If I have any area of mild critique of the sector, I think that it could do a better job and there is a role for us as well. Shouting about the activity that is happening here in Scotland clearly is also an important driver of making sure that we are responsive to the various skills requirements that we have here in Scotland. Of course, as economic anchors of their own right in their own community, the university sector is of the utmost importance. I do not want there to be any sense that I do not recognise that. In terms of the resource that we invest, we continue to put in over £1 billion into the university sector each and every year. That is a substantial investment. I think that, by any reasonable estimation, where we look again at those things in terms of cost per unit, cost per head, I am afraid to say and I am bound to say that it is going to be difficult to do that in the context of where the budget is just now. There is no point in pretending anything otherwise than that, Mr Marra. On the University of Scotland that I have written to the committee and told us that we have now reached what they describe as a significant tipping point, where, in 2324, the amount of money being brought in to universities by international student recruitment will outstrip public funding for the first time. We could talk about the rights and wrongs of that in terms of the budget process, but does it worry the minister that we are open to external shocks, that there is a vulnerability in our institutions? Are vital, as you put them rightly, public universities, that a shock in international relations and the recruitment market when we are now so reliant on international students? Is that a concern that the minister has? What can we do to ensure that resilience is there? In the first instance, I take the point and I will come on to it. I think that it is important for us to reflect. Hopefully, collectively, international students are very welcome here to Scotland that they play an important part in our university communities and indeed in our wider society. I am alert to some of the challenges that Mr Marra refers to, and they are ones that I take seriously, and they are ones that we have to be cognisant of. We are committed to developing our international education strategy, and a core part of that has to be how we consider to make sure and make clear that the sector can be resilient in the face of any particular type of shock that you may refer to. It is something that we are alert to and conscious of, and it is something that we want to work with the sector to make sure that there is resilience embedded within our institutions. I would be appreciated by the committee. Can we have a date on the international education strategy? Can we have any details on what you mean by being cognisant of the issue in terms of external shock? What is being done to make our institutions more resilient, our sector more resilient? The last point that I had was that a colleague on the committee made a suggestion at a previous meeting that the idea that there might be differential fees between different parts of the university sector, a different rate or unit of resource, that has created some real concern within the sector. Maybe the minister would take the opportunity to either dismiss that or to confirm that that is something that is under active consideration by the Government. It is not under active consideration. It is not something that we are looking at specifically. As we move forward, areas can be considered, but that is not one that I would envisage as looking at because it would immediately embed an additional layer of complexity and unintended consequences. I hope that that can provide some reassurance in that sense. In terms of trying to explain what I mean by being cognisant of some of the challenges, I do not really know how to explain that in any more specific basis in that I am conscious and understand that we have just seen very real shock to the international order this year that continues that is having a wider influence on global affairs, not particularly on this particular area of life in Scotland, but it demonstrates that events come along and can change things. What I mean by that is that we need to make sure that we work with the sector to recognise that events like that can happen and that that might have a particular impact on the sector as a whole or more likely specific institutions. How do we deal with that? How do we make sure that institutions can continue to undertake the work that they do if any event comes along? In terms of timescale, I am happy to follow-up convener to the committee in a bit more detail in terms of the work that we are taking on the strategy. Thank you minister. That follow-up regarding the timescale would be very helpful. Can I just bring in Stephen Kerr please? I will be very brief of my questions. The minister suggests that this sector has not suffered from the geopolitical shocks of the events of this year and the consequences of the supply chain crisis around the end of Covid. I would suggest that this sector is suffering more in the same way that all sectors are suffering because of the global inflation impact and also the increasing international uncertainties. Minister, the University of Scotland says specifically, and I would like to read this to you and get your view. The quote is, even without the perpetual risk of a geopolitical shock, the extent of cross-subsidies now jeopardises the quality of education, experience and support that universities are able to offer. When that happens, international students will exercise their choice to go elsewhere. I was not suggesting that there has been no impact. I suppose that I was referring more to the fact that, if I was picking up the matter's point correctly, there are particular markets in terms of the number of students that are attracted to Scotland. That has not been substantially disrupted by the events of this year. Clearly, in common with every sector and incidentally, that is adding to the budget pressures that we face. Of course, there has been an impact as a result of the wider geopolitical situation that we have seen this year. In relation to the point that has been made by Mr Kerr on behalf of the University of Scotland, that is something that I am more than willing to get into in terms of the substance of the detail with the University of Scotland. We have not particularly done that, thus far. It has not come forward to me to say how that might specifically manifest itself. I would be interested to understand in what way it would negatively impact on the educational experience. I have certainly not perceived it to be the case that international students coming here to Scotland has negatively impacted in any particular fashion. If it is more an issue around the potential impact for the sector as a consequence of other international events, I would go back to the answer that I have just given to Mr Marra. That is something that we need to take account of in the international education strategy that we are committed to taking forward. I cannot hear you, Mr Kerr. Sorry. Can you hear me? I think that what University of Scotland is referring to, and this is another quote from their submission to us, is that the funding model that we are now operating to bakes in a structural reliance on international fees. What they are basically saying is that even without the potential of a geopolitical shock that that is going to erode the quality of the offer that is beat because of the cross-subsidy, because of the level of the cross-subsidy, it is going to erode the quality of the education and the experience on offer in Scotland. That has got to be—I am actually shocked, convener, that that has never been discussed between University of Scotland and the minister because this seems to me to be a huge, existing and known threat. I will make one more point if I might. The possibilities of further geopolitical shocks are obviously very real, and in particular in relation to the share of international students that come to Scotland from China, which is now at 17,165 for 2020-21. Of course, we welcome all the international students to Scotland. We are just keeping an eye on the time. My question is that vulnerability of that particular block of students that are creating the cross-subsidy possibility. Does the minister agree that the Chinese Communist Party is using all the instruments of its international architecture, including the Confucius institutes, to harass, intimidate and track down people? So, two points there. That, by the way, is a quote from Stuart MacDonald from the SNP defence spokesman. Can I refer to the minister for his comments in response to that, please? The first one is a fairly fundamental point that I have to respond to. I must suggest that we haven't discussed these matters in the round with University of Scotland. Of course they have been. Of course they have been. It's about the very specific point that was made in the letter that you have quoted. I'm more than willing to pick up on that. On the specific point that Mr Kerr has made about that particular market and cohort of students, I guess that that would be reflected in the answer that I have already given in terms of how we work with the sector to be resilient to any particular shock that may come. Let's not talk up with the prospect of one in the first instance, but let's make sure that we have a sector that can be resilient to that possibility. On the latter point about Confucius institutes, I have no direct control or say as to the relationship that any individual institution might have with such organisations. That's for the universities to account for. What I can say is that, if you look at the Higher Education Act 2016, we're very clear about what it should be undertaking in terms of academic freedoms in our institutions, and I expect that to be taken very seriously. Thank you minister. Just heading to our final few minutes, I'd like to bring in Stephanie Callahan. A couple of questions rolled into one minister. Will being as rightly been a key priority with the Scottish Government funding 80 additional university mental health councillors? Firstly, is there adequate support available for students to struggle with their mental health? And secondly, have we heard any evidence about the positive impact to the additional mental health councillors and also about the possibility of funding them from budgets, possibly other than education? Are you able to say anything further on that just now or offer an idea on timescales and the decision around continued funding for mental health councillors? Thanks. So that's something that we're looking at just now and it's an extrucable part of the budget process. We've made certain commitments to our manifesto and through programme for government and I'm very clear that we need to meet those commitments. In the first instance, what we might do beyond that has to be informed by engagement that we have with the sector and I understand and recognise that they see value in the investment that has been made in the mental health councillors, but we also have to be informed by the student mental health action plan that we're going to bring forward in conjunction with the sector. We have a student mental health and wellbeing working group, which rightly involves the national union of students and other representatives of the sector as well, to make sure that any decisions that we take forward on an informed basis and to ensure that we are responding to what I recognise are significant challenges in terms of the mental wellbeing of Scotland's student population. It's been an enormously difficult period of time through Covid-19 now in terms of the cost of living crisis. That will bring its pressure to bear on the student population and their sense of wellbeing. Our strategy is going to be well timed in that regard, how we resource that and structure it thereafter as a matter of wider consideration in line with the ordinary budget process that we have in place. Thank you minister. Stephanie Callaghan, are you finished with your line of questioning? Yes, thank you, convener. Thank you very much. I am mindful of the time. I have allowed an extra few minutes to compensate for our technical difficulties but we are now at the end of this very brief but very productive session. Thank you all for your time this morning. We will now have a brief suspension to allow for the witnesses to log off or leave. Our next item on the agenda is to consider a piece of subordinate legislation, the Education Listed Bodies Scotland Amendment Order 2022. This instrument is subject to the negative procedure. It seeks to modify an earlier order from 2018 to correct the names of two listed bodies within the schedule of that 2018 order. Does anyone have any comments to make on the SSI? No comments? Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument? Our next item of business today is consideration of a consent notification relating to the European University Institute, EU exit regulations 2022, EU exit legislation. I refer members to paper six in their paper pack. Do members have any comments on the notification? Do our members content with the Scottish Government's decision to consent to the provisions set out in the notifications being included in UK rather than Scottish subordinate legislation? The public part of today's meeting is now at an end. We will now consider our final agenda items in private. As my first subbing for the convener, I would like to thank everybody for their help and support this morning. I would like to wish Pam Gosall, who attended as well, the best for the rest of her day as well. Thank you to everyone and goodbye.