Official Report 318KB pdf
Fundable Bodies<br />(The Scottish Agricultural College) (Scotland) Order 2008 (Draft)
I open the 12th meeting in 2008 of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. We have received apologies from Jeremy Purvis, who is unable to attend. I understand that it is likely that Iain Smith, Malcolm Chisholm and Ted Brocklebank will join us when we take evidence on the Creative Scotland Bill.
I will endeavour to be brief, given the committee's other business this morning.
Thank you for your explanation. Do members have questions for the minister?
The proposed new arrangements were consulted on and the Executive note says:
The main concern was that the funding arrangements should not be detrimental to existing higher education institutions or to the SAC. Negotiations and consultation on the amount of funding that will be transferred are on-going.
Will the funding for the college that used to be received from the Government's environment and rural affairs department be entirely transferred to the SFC?
The part that deals with education will be transferred.
Is it clear which part deals with education?
Yes. For some time, the directorate that runs the SAC has funded specific packages of services, one of which is education, so the funding that aligns with education is clearly demarcated and can be transferred.
Is the college confident that there will be no funding shortfall—as opposed to other difficulties—as a result of the new arrangements?
Yes.
Have other institutions expressed concern that they will be adversely affected when the SFC takes over the college's funding?
As you have picked up on, that was a theme of some comments in the consultation. However, as we say, the funding that is already available to the college will be transferred. Discussions are continuing among the Scottish funding council, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Agricultural College on the final transfer amounts. The transfer should not be to the detriment of other bodies.
Is the Scottish Agricultural College funded at the same rate and on the same basis as other higher and further education institutions?
That point has been under discussion. Historically, the college has not been in the funding council fold. Although we have tried to shadow, if you like, the formula that has been used, it was never possible to do so as precisely as the current discussions have allowed. How to bring the figures together is part of the continuing discussions with the SAC and the SFC.
Is there a marked difference, and in whose favour is it? Is the SAC not quite as well funded as other institutions, or is it better funded?
The present picture is subject to final discussions, but the calculations show that the proposed funding is slightly ahead of the funding that the SAC would receive from the Scottish Government under the existing arrangements.
What would the funding shortfall be?
I have to emphasise that it is a moving picture while the numbers are finalised. The total coming across from Norman Harvey's area is—
It is £6.6 million revenue and £0.3 million capital.
So, £6.9 million in total. At the moment, if the SFC were funding the college on a normal basis, the numbers would be round about £8 million. The important point is that the SAC will not be any worse off than it would be if its funding were to continue to come directly from the Scottish Government, and neither—certainly during the current spending review, which we have just moved into—will any colleges or universities be any worse off. Their funding will not suffer in any way.
In the long term, do I take it that you want to move to parity of funding? Will the Executive make up the shortfall?
Such matters are still under consideration in the consultation, in which everybody is involved. The Scottish funding council has written to all the higher education institutions in Scotland to reassure them that the SAC's becoming a fundable body will not have a detrimental effect on the existing fundable bodies. I think that everyone can see our direction of travel.
But we can also see that there is a difference of £1.1 million. The cost of making up that difference will have to be borne either by all the other fundable bodies or by the Executive. Is the Executive still engaged in the discussions?
Absolutely.
Has a deadline been set for reaching a conclusion?
If possible, we want to reach an agreement by 1 August 2008.
It is a good idea for all the colleges to be dealt with on an equal basis. Could we ask the minister to come back to the committee once a final agreement has been reached? We could then find out whether the difference has been made up by the Executive or by the existing colleges—by the SFC, in effect.
You may want to reiterate that point when we move to the debate. At the moment, we are just asking questions of the minister.
Good morning, minister. Is the Scottish Agricultural College's income from its activities greater than the income of the universities and other institutions? If we considered the college's total funding package for its educational side and for its other activities, would we see that the make-up of the college's budget is slightly different from that of the other institutions?
In consideration of the SAC's budget, we have to separate the education part from the research and development part.
From memory, the SAC's total turnover in round figures is about £42 million or £43 million. The education component in total—including fees that the college may get from other funding sources, and so on—is probably under £10 million. I do not know whether that helps to give the perspective that you seek.
It does, because if we are to examine the issue in the round and address the question about whether there is some kind of differential, we have to consider the use to which the money is put, in terms of the courses that are provided at the SAC in comparison with other universities. Are you satisfied that the way in which things are proceeding is fair?
Yes—the consultation and the negotiations have been pretty amicable. At the moment, it is about getting down to the nitty-gritty detail of the funding package. My officials might like to comment further.
I am not sure what aspect you are thinking about with regard to fairness. It is certainly our aspiration—and it is likely—that it will be fair, with regard to the more medium and long-term funding arrangements for the Scottish Agricultural College in relation to its education activities, analogous to the SFC's funding of colleges and universities. That is where it should be, and it is very close at the moment.
I will pick up on your point, Mr Fairbairn. Obviously, the reason for the move is to bring about better governance and better outcomes. Why do you think that, by putting the SAC into the Scottish funding council, you will achieve a better outcome than under the existing system?
The funding council's statutory objective is to achieve coherent provision of further and higher education. The SAC's education activities are part of the whole of further and higher education provision in Scotland, so we view the move positively, because it will bring the SAC into the fold and the totality of land-based agricultural-type provision by colleges and universities.
It is good to hear you say that the move will make things easier, not just in financial terms but in relation to organisation and governance.
Ministers felt that bringing the SAC into the fold of the funding council, rather than keeping it separate under Scottish Government directorates as it is at the moment, would better reflect its status as a provider of higher education.
That exhausts our questions for the minister.
Motion moved,
That the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee recommends that the draft Fundable Bodies (The Scottish Agricultural College) (Scotland) Order 2008 be approved.—[Maureen Watt].
I reiterate my earlier point, although I am not sure whether it is a point for debate now or a point for the committee. For the reasons that the minister and her officials have outlined, the move is desirable in the interests of parity and fairness. It benefits all students if colleges and universities work together. My point is that no one should be disadvantaged. There is potential for the current differential and shortfall in funding for the SAC to be borne by other institutions, although that would be spread across the board. That is a sum of slightly more than £1 million that could be spent in other colleges, so I imagine that they are concerned.
I welcome the order, which must be seen in the context of the modernisation of the Scottish Agricultural College, which started in a spirit of cross-party co-operation at the beginning of the previous session of Parliament. The move towards parity of esteem for students in the college with other students is a vital part of that modernisation. Given that we have aspirations to have more students going to colleges and universities, the Government will be able to find the cash concerned. It is a small amount overall, but nevertheless it is part of the aspirations of a Government that seeks to have more students in all sectors. I welcome the minister's answers and wish the order well.
No other member wishes to speak, so I invite the minister to respond to the debate. In particular, I ask her to respond to the committee's request for her to come back to us at a later date on the conclusion of negotiations with the Scottish funding council.
To respond to Ken Macintosh's point, it has always been the intention that the initial funding from the Scottish funding council will equate to the funding that is transferred from the rural affairs and the environment department. The SAC agreed to the terms of the consultation. Any additional funding or differential will be not met from the higher education settlement.
The question is, that motion S3M-1784 be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
That the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee recommends that the draft Fundable Bodies (The Scottish Agricultural College) (Scotland) Order 2008 be approved.
I thank the minister for attending.