Further Education Funding (PE1414)
Item 4 is consideration of PE1414, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reconsider its proposed budget in relation to the further education sector. Members have received a background briefing on the petition along with their papers. Do members have any comments on the petition?
It rather appears that the petition has been overtaken by events. It would be fair to say that the representations from Angus throughout the debate on the FE aspect of the budget were fairly influential in applying pressure and persuading ministers to look again at the budget settlement, but I am not sure what more we can do with the petition now that the budget has been approved.
Obviously the budget has been passed, and the petition has come to us after that decision has been made. The petition refers to £74 million of cuts. My understanding is that, although that figure has reduced in financial terms, there will still be a significant cut to college budgets over the next four years. With that in mind, I suggest that we get back in contact with the Unison further education sector to see what it makes of the changes that have been made to the budget, and to find out whether it still has concerns. The petition relates to something that was proposed a few weeks ago; changes have been made since then, but significant cuts will still be made. It would be right and proper to get back in touch with the petitioner to ascertain their views on the subsequent changes.
I concur with what Liam McArthur said about the petition being overtaken. The issue has been dealt with through the budget process. The petition asks us to revisit a budget decision with regard to one particular sector, but our area of consideration is the bigger picture. In the current climate, given the Westminster cuts, we could not do anything in response to a petition of this type anyway. I recommend that we close it.
It is fair to say that the committee has been over college funding in great depth so far, in our budget scrutiny and in follow-up work such as this, which continues the scrutiny as we said that we would. We will almost certainly look at college funding in the coming years, because it is likely to be of similar political salience in successive budgets to what it has been this year.
It is only courteous and fair that we go back to the petitioner, given that events have moved on. I certainly take issue with Clare Adamson’s view that there is nothing we can do—of course there are things that we can do. The Government controls the budget; it can put the money into whatever it likes. It is only right, irrespective of who the petitioner is, that we go back to them and ask them how they see the petition proceeding.
I concur with Clare Adamson. There is no doubt that the light is shining on this sector now, and we have heard about some of the developments that may take place. More than anything, we are all anxious to know that Scotland has a good college sector.
Is there not a factual point here? Events have moved on, and therefore a decision has been taken. We should write back to the petitioner, because it is important that we do so, and make clear that there was a considerable amount of lobbying to reduce the £74 million of cuts, and that that has to some extent been achieved. We should also make clear that we are still exercised as a committee about the fact that there are further cuts to be made.
I concur with the comments about time having moved on. The petition asked the Government to reconsider its proposals, and that has happened—there was a reconsideration. We have correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, and we had the debate and eventually stage 3 of the Budget (Scotland) Bill, as well as the evidence that the committee took. There is the transformation fund of £15 million, and we have had the two announcements of £11.4 million for student support and the additional £13.1 million.
There is no urgency to make the decision today. It would be only right to consult the petitioner, and if they were content we could make the decision next time. We must bear in mind that the petition refers to the next four academic sessions, not just to this year.
There is no urgency in that sense. We could leave things lying for an indeterminate length of time, but that would not be reasonable. I do not want to put words into people’s mouths, but I think that the point being made is that the budget decision has now been taken and that the petition has been overtaken by events. It is not up to petitioners to decide whether the committee closes a petition or takes a particular action. The committee has the evidence, and it is up to us to decide what action we take. We have two proposals, one to close the petition, suggested first by Clare Adamson, and one from Neil Bibby, supported by Neil Findlay, to keep it open until we seek further comment from the petitioner. Is that a fair summary?
Yes.
May I ask members what position they wish to take? I will go around the table. That is only reasonable. If possible, I do not want to have a vote, but I want to get the balance of opinion.
I would close the petition, but it is important to go back to the petitioner to ask for comment.
Yes, I am happy to do that.
I would close the petition.
I would close the petition.
I support Liz Smith’s view. It re-emphasised the point about the changes that have been made. It would not be unreasonable to point to the fact that Angus College was repeatedly cited in the debate and would have had an influence on those changes.
I would close it.
I would close the petition.
I would keep the petition open to ascertain the views of the petitioner on the changes made.
As would I.
I agree with Liz Smith’s suggestion. I think that the balance of opinion is with that, so unless someone wishes to force a formal vote it would be preferable to close the petition and write to the petitioner along the lines that she indicated.
I am sorry, convener, but I think that we should move to a formal vote.
A formal vote has been requested. The question is, that we should close the petition and write to the petitioner, along the lines proposed by Liz Smith. Are we agreed?
There will be a division.
Convener, can we please add that we should have sight of the communication that goes to the petitioner?
I am happy for a draft to be circulated before it is sent.
Thank you. That would be helpful.
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 0. The petition will be closed.
May I request that that detail is included in our communication with the petitioner?
A draft will be circulated, and I am happy for members to comment on it.