“Overview of Further Education Colleges in Scotland 2000/2001”
Item 2 concerns a response from the Scottish Executive to the Audit Committee's seventh report of 2002, on the "Overview of Further Education Colleges in Scotland 2000/2001". I am concerned about the nature and tone of the response that we have received to our clear recommendations for positive action. For example, we pointed out in paragraph 3 on page 2 of our report the fundamental weakness of a financial recovery plan that stretches out over 10 years for a college that doubts it can even reach that target date. However, we are told of the confidence that financial recovery can be achieved in five or six years, despite the fact that Inverness College doubts that it can be achieved over 10 years. Which version is correct, and on what is it based?
The response states that five or six years will be taken for recovery, despite the fact that many further education colleges are running annual deficits and accumulated deficits of more than £1 million. The response refers to embarking on campaigns shortly. I would like to know when the Scottish Further Education Funding Council will embark on its campaign. How many colleges will not achieve financial balance by 2006? I ask that because it is clear that some colleges, even the most prudent ones, are finding it difficult to balance their books.
The response does not address our recommendations. In paragraph 4 we sought action, but the response only gives guidance, when the reality of the situation is deficits.
I believe that paragraph 5 is a misinterpretation of what we proposed. We said:
"We call on the Funding Council to … publish a step by step programme, with appropriate timescales, for the implementation of the mapping process"
which, as was pointed out, would form the basis for strategic planning by colleges. However, the Executive's response states:
"The overall objective of the mapping processes is to encourage significant long-term strategic change. It is not in itself an implementation plan."
In many ways that response is a misinterpretation of what we proposed. I would like to know more about who is monitoring overall and about the individual progress of those colleges.
Again, in paragraph 6, we called on the funding council to publish time scales for the new estates funding model. We asked for action and timetables and we are given circulars. That is a totally inadequate response to an on-going situation.
The committee's recommendations have not been adequately addressed. I therefore suggest that we write to the Executive for further clarification and a more positive approach to our report and its recommendations.
I share your concerns. The responses to each recommendation are extremely brief and laid back to the point of being complacent. We called for radical and necessary action in a sector that is in crisis. I do not say that to dramatise the situation but simply to point out the need for action.
Action is not just needed on the Government's mapping; members will remember that I was concerned about the state of the college estates. In at least two of the seven further education colleges that I have seen the conditions in the buildings in which staff and students work are quite unacceptable.
A number of questions have to be sent back to the minister and I hope for a more detailed response. I agree that we need much more detail about the mapping exercise and the college estates. I was looking for an implementation plan for the 43 colleges. In particular, where overlapping occurs, it may be possible to merge the administrative sides of colleges, as happened with Fife College of Further and Higher Education and Glenrothes College, which shared their financial administration so that more money could be put into the front line.
Again, on the college estates, the figure in the Auditor General's report is a basic figure, as we found out when we took evidence. It is just for making the buildings windproof and waterproof and not for improving the estate to the extent that it needs to be improved.
The response is in a different format from that of responses that we have received in the past. Milestones were always built into the responses as an indication. From my conversation with the convener, I thought that this response had taken the standard format. It is not helpful that the Executive appears to have used a different format on this occasion.
It is as if we had never investigated the financing of further education colleges. There is no correlation with some of the recommendations that we have made in the past; there is no information about their progress and about how they impacted on some of the comments that we made this time. I feel that the Executive has missed the point and has, to some extent, ignored what the committee has attempted to do. We tried to set the Executive on the road of ensuring that colleges' funding streams are considered so that we can reduce the number of colleges that will have financial difficulties in the next couple of years and in the long term. I share the view that we should reissue our recommendations and ask for proper responses. I do not think that we can accept what we have before us.
I entirely agree with what Margaret Jamieson said, and I share her concerns. My specific concern relates to the clash of evidence. I refer to paragraph 3 of the Executive's response, on Inverness College. It was clear from the evidence that we took from the college's representatives that they did not believe that it could genuinely work through the issues, even within 10 years, yet we discover in the Executive's response that
"There is confidence that financial recovery can be achieved by the financial year 2008-09."
I want to know what information the Executive had in order to come to that conclusion, given that the evidence that we took from the people representing Inverness College flies in the face of that. We could be quite harsh about this. We could say that what we have been presented with by way of response to our report is insufficient, given the limited period that we have for continuing work. Furthermore, it strikes me that the response was issued with the attitude that the committee is not going to be sitting for much longer. I feel that we are being deliberately misled in certain areas.
I would certainly like some clarification.
I do not share the views that have just been expressed, although we have nothing like enough information and we do not have examples. I would like the information to be fleshed out. If it is now believed that Inverness College and other colleges are able to recover on shorter time scales, that is great. I am not necessarily coming at this with the same approach as other members, but I thought that the Executive's response was rather light, and that there was not enough information in it.
I concur with that. As well as seeking clarification, I would wish to reinforce the committee's clear views on the short-term, medium-term and long-term financial and organisational health of the whole further education sector. That is the purpose of our report. I would really like the Executive to address properly the positive recommendations that we made. Bearing in mind the fact that Audit Scotland will be returning to the issues in its next annual overview, I suggest that the clerk write to the Scottish Executive, making the committee's views known and seeking the clarification requested.
It depends on what we think the committee's views are. It would be useful if you could summarise the committee's views.
We suggested positive action in some of our recommendations but have just been told that there will be circulars. I would like it to be mapped out clearly what the recovery plans for the colleges are, who is expected to be part of them and when they are expected to deliver. If we end up with a basis for all future planning for further education colleges, it must be clearly established how that is to be achieved. We cannot progress until we have a clear idea of the route ahead and of when the milestones that have been mentioned will be reached.
I return to the case of Inverness College, which has echoes for many of the other colleges in recovery. We took evidence from Inverness College only about three or four months ago. Where did the magic bullet come from? Inverness College told us a few months ago that it cannot necessarily get out of the situation in which it finds itself even within 10 years. Then, a few months later, and with no explanation, we are told that the college will get out of its situation within five or six years. That has a clear knock-on effect on any other colleges that are working according to 10-year recovery plans. Is there a magic bullet, or are we simply being given two different sets of information? Was our questioning of the people from Inverness College more rigorous than that of the Executive or vice versa?
Perhaps we could give the clerks particular questions that can be incorporated in our letter to the Executive. There are a number of specific issues before us, but my concern is that the buck is being passed to the funding council. That is clear from the opening paragraph of the Executive's response.
Point 4 of the response says:
"Specific action has been taken in giving guidance on improving performance in specialised areas, such as finance and estates."
We know that a limited amount of capital is available. Although the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning might be finding it difficult to make specific commitments about finance for estates because of the forthcoming elections, he cannot just pass the buck to the funding council, as it depends on the Executive for the capital. Such points must be addressed.
Point 5 makes a specific point. It says:
"The overall objective of the mapping processes is to encourage significant long-term strategic change. It is not in itself an implementation plan."
We sought much more immediate progress than that; or, at least, we sought something in the medium term rather than in the long term. The minister must respond in detail to such issues. Although I understand the difficulties that he faces, given that an election is in the offing, he could set out a detailed response and could explain that the approaching election inhibits him from making specific commitments.
I want to clarify that the response is from the accountable officer, not the minister. The Audit Committee does not deal with policy; we deal with the facts of the matter. That is as it should be. We understand the massive problems that are involved in further education. That is why we made positive recommendations, which have not been addressed in the response that we have received. If the committee wishes, the clerk will write to the accountable officer to point that out and to seek clarification on the response to our recommendations.
Although I accept your point, the accountable officer is ultimately responsible to the minister. The document makes constant reference to ministers and to the strategic guidance that is issued by ministers. For example, it says:
"Ministers have on several occasions also been able to supplement their funding plans for FE".
We know where funding decisions are made.
I have a couple of points on Inverness College, which is referred to in point 3. I would like us to ask what is meant by
"The Council is shortly to embark on a campaign for financial security in the FE sector. This will involve defining what is meant by financial security, establishing targets and taking steps to ensure that the vast majority of colleges achieve financial security by 2006."
We should ask for that definition of financial security. It is clear that a new concept of financial security is being considered. I also suggest that we write to Inverness College to ask what has changed since its representatives gave us the evidence that we used in our report.
In the first instance, I suggest that we request a reply from the accountable officer. Our first contact should be with the accountable officer. Once the clerk has produced a draft of the letter, I would be happy to circulate it, if that would be of assistance to the committee. Members could let us know about any points that they feel we have missed out. In that way, we will all be clear about our response to the response that we received.
If we make serious recommendations, they should be addressed seriously and should not be treated inadequately. That is the purpose of our response. Do members agree that the clerk will draft a letter to the accountable officer to seek further clarification of the Executive's response? That draft will be circulated before it is sent.
Members indicated agreement.