Higher and Further Education (Governance)
The next item of business is a statement by Michael Russell on higher and further education governance reports. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
14:33
Last June, I commissioned independent reviews into how our universities and colleges are governed. In September, I launched “Putting Learners at the Centre—Delivering our Ambitions for Post-16 Education”—our ambitious programme of reform of post-16 education. Our governance reforms were prompted by widespread concern that the existing models were in need of review not because they had failed, but because the time was right to consider their fitness for purpose. Moreover, our subsequent plans for reform set a wider context for change. Those plans extend across the spectrum of post-16 learning, from universities to first-step skills provision.
It is fair to say that the college sector occupies a central part of our reform programme, and rightly so, since it provides opportunities for tens of thousands of learners each year. Despite the way in which some people have chosen to characterise the situation, it remains a system in which we shall invest in excess of £2 billion over the spending review period. Therefore, last November, with the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, I published a second consultation, this time on a regional system of colleges in which funding would more closely relate to need. We have consulted extensively on both papers and will publish our response to the full consultation in a few weeks. However, I have, being conscious of the need that college representatives expressed for an early announcement, reached conclusions on two important matters: the regions and the colleges that they should comprise.
In my statement I also want to outline next steps on the two governance reviews. On governance, our universities and colleges absorb enormous sums of public money. That is as it should be; they are a good investment. The public rightly expect the highest standards of governance and accountability in our universities and colleges, as in our board rooms, in our council chambers and in the Parliament.
I am delighted to publish two reports: one on governance in universities, by Professor Ferdinand von Prondzynski and his committee, and one by Professor Russel Griggs, on colleges. I very much welcome the reports, which give us a firm basis from which to move forward. We will do so in close consultation with both sectors, to be consistent with the approach that I have taken to all areas of reform.
I will highlight the main issues in the reports. Professor von Prondzynski’s committee took evidence from a wide range of interests in Scotland and beyond, including America and Finland. The result is a thoroughly considered piece of work, which I hope will be welcomed across the sector and can form the template for long-term improvements to how our universities are governed. First and foremost, the report recognises the importance of academic freedom and that it is clear that that principle must be protected in any programme of change. I entirely agree.
The report also recognises that the sector receives—as I said—and always has received considerable sums of public money, and that it therefore has a clear responsibility to help the Government to take Scotland forward. Again, I agree. I am sure that the sector will agree, too.
Against that background, the report advocates a single statute that sets out the basis on which our universities are established, which would remove the anachronism that is inherent in the involvement of the Privy Council and would replace the six different models of governance that are identified in the report, thereby allowing future change to be brokered more easily.
The report also addresses the remuneration of senior management, again in the context of the need to give all stakeholders confidence in the leadership of our institutions. Transparency and accountability are, again, the watchwords in that regard.
Given the significant levels of public investment, I want to work more closely with the sector to agree a strategic direction. In that sense, Professor von Prondzynski’s proposal for an advisory forum to help to develop strategy is helpful.
If confidence is to be maintained, democracy and transparency need to be at the heart of the systems that are used to appoint the people who govern our institutions. I welcome the proposals to address the shortcomings that exist and, in particular, I welcome the intriguing idea of electing chairs of court.
As I said, I will consider all the proposals with the sector in the period ahead. I broadly welcome them all and wish to see them being taken forward.
On colleges, Russel Griggs has delivered a thought-provoking set of proposals, which links our plans for a regional structure—I shall come to that in a moment—with a new style of governance, which is designed to fit the institutions that will emerge. I am delighted to say that I can accept almost in its entirety the new regional structure that Professor Griggs proposes, which is substantially in tune with our thinking.
Professor Griggs also makes significant recommendations on the relationship between Government and the college sector. Back in 1993, colleges were dragged away from local authority control by the United Kingdom Government of the day. That brought some benefits, but it also offered freedom to individual colleges to engage in what has, at times, turned out to be wasteful competition. It allowed the establishment in individual colleges of systems on pay bargaining and curriculum, for example, which has resulted in expensive duplication. We will look very closely at the recommendations of Professor Griggs that are aimed at addressing that issue.
Professor Griggs has made a number of other helpful suggestions. He covers the anachronistic stipulations on how a college must be governed, including the rule that debars people aged over 70 from being appointed to a college’s governing body, the provision that debars local councillors—but no other level of elected representative—from accepting an invitation to chair a college’s board of management, and the provision that no local authority employee may accept an invitation to chair a college board, which makes no sense at all. The important point is the principle that underpins Professor Griggs’s work. Our overall approach should be one that holds a college’s governing body closely to account for the outcomes that we want to see, while allowing the governing body the latitude to deliver those outcomes as it sees fit.
We have made significant headway on college regionalisation and we have been working closely with the sector on how we will take forward that central element of reform from the next academic year. We can too easily slip into education jargon. Regionalisation is merely the means of restructuring the sector so that colleges work together to plan strategically while continuing to deliver locally; it does not mean “merger”. We need to work out the exact relationship between the regional structures and individual colleges, and we will do so with the colleges themselves. A healthy debate is now under way and that debate includes, where such an approach is desired, institutional merger and other delivery models.
I can report that active discussions are taking place on those developments. This week, for example, I discussed with the education director of Glasgow City Council and the principal of Glasgow Caledonian University the prospect of a broader strategic partnership involving schools, colleges and universities in the Glasgow region. Both were hugely enthusiastic about the education benefits that could flow from such a move, so I hope that they will play an active part in shaping and delivering a new plan for that region. Such a model in Glasgow could act as a real force in planning and delivering the sort of coherent learner journey to which we are committed, and the learning and skills pipeline that the city—and, indeed, Scotland—needs in order to accelerate growth.
The next important step, therefore, is to confirm the regions, and the colleges that will fall within them in order to allow the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council to give colleges the detailed budget information that they need to plan provision for the next academic year and to begin doing so on a regional basis, ahead of full roll-out next year.
As this is the best way of meeting the needs of learners and employers, let me outline what I have concluded. There will be 12 regions, most of which are now finalised, but with some detail in two places still to be concluded. The Highlands and Islands region will include Perth College, Lews Castle College, Orkney College, Shetland College, Inverness College, Moray College, North Highland College, Argyll College and West Highland College. The Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire region will comprise Aberdeen College and Banff and Buchan College. Some work still has to be done on the Fife region, but it will be formed by Adam Smith College and Carnegie College with the non-land-based provision at Elmwood College and the possible involvement of another third sector partner.
The Tayside region will be formed by Dundee College and Angus College. The Glasgow region will comprise Anniesland College, North Glasgow College, Stow College, John Wheatley College, Cardonald College, Langside College and City of Glasgow College. The west region will comprise Reid Kerr College and Clydebank College and the Inverclyde campus of James Watt College. The Ayrshire region will include Ayr College, Kilmarnock College and the Kilwinning campus of James Watt College. The Dumfries and Galloway region will comprise Dumfries and Galloway College, but it will be linked at the Crichton site with a wide range of other provision to make a very exciting model. The Borders region will comprise only Borders College.
The Lanarkshire region will comprise Coatbridge College, Cumbernauld College, Motherwell College and South Lanarkshire College and the Edinburgh and the Lothians region will comprise Jewel & Esk College, Stevenson College and Telford College, and there will be a central region that might comprise just Forth Valley College. The position of West Lothian College remains uncertain. There has been a great deal of debate about it and I have asked the funding council to progress the issue in discussions. I will meet some of those who are involved in those discussions next week. Finally, I make clear my view that with the land-based colleges it makes better sense to have an arrangement that is based on specialism rather than on geography: they are already working in partnership and are moving to a merger with the Scottish Agricultural College.
In summary, those will be the 12 regions for the purposes of planning and funding of FE provision. I am writing today to the funding council to confirm my views. Not everyone will agree, although I think that many will. In any event, I need to make the decisions now so that the sector can get on with restructuring and we can begin to realise the benefits for learners.
I conclude with the future governance of the University of the Highlands and Islands—an issue that neither Professor Griggs nor Professor von Prondzynski was asked to consider in detail but which is of key importance. Yesterday, I met all 13 of the university’s academic partners, along with the principal and chair of the university court, to consider how we might move towards the creation of a genuinely integrated structure. I was delighted that the partners offered their support in a number of highly significant areas, including agreement in principle to a new tripartite framework within which the leadership of the institution would sit. Such an arrangement would attach equal weight to the interests of higher education, non-advanced further education and research and specialism. I will meet the partners again in March to progress that approach.
In what was a busy day yesterday, I also met representatives of the National Union of Students Scotland who—I am delighted to report—agreed to work with me on examining how we might distribute more effectively the resources that we make available to fund financial support to college students. That will include examining the scope to remove some of the uncertainty that is currently associated with the system’s discretionary nature.
I have made a personal commitment to work closely with the sector to tackle the challenges. I have met principals on many occasions collectively and individually; I have listened and am listening. The £15 million college transformation fund and our work with the SFC to alleviate the drop in funding between this academic year and the next are hard evidence of that. We are having the kinds of conversations that people once said were impossible.
However, we still have a lot to do. The next step is to give the sector the detail that it needs about next year’s funding. With a decision on the regions, the funding council is now in a position to do that and I expect that information to be with colleges imminently.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow about 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business.
I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning for the copy of his statement, and I welcome many of the recommendations that he has made.
Labour does not dispute the need to look at issues of governance and accountability when scarce public resources are involved; indeed, with my former colleague George Foulkes, I raised concerns about the scandalous way in which remuneration packages for university principals have soared to beyond £200,000 per year. I believe that the old boys’ network needs to be broken, and that more women should be involved not only on university courts, but in senior positions.
There are issues around college governance and accountability that were never fully addressed when the colleges were taken away from local authority oversight. However, the cabinet secretary should not confuse accountability with ministerial interference. I welcome and agree with his comments on academic freedom, but I want a clear indication of the boundaries between accountability for use of public funds and the role of ministers.
As for colleges, I worry that the agenda for regionalisation and governance is being used as an attempt to move attention away from cuts, job losses, course reductions and reduced student choice. The plans that the cabinet secretary has outlined indicate a shotgun marriage rather than agreement based on consensus.
Can the cabinet secretary guarantee that nothing will be done that would risk the loss of charitable status for colleges? Will he reconsider the damaging cuts to college funding that are hindering colleges’ ability to respond to current challenges? Will he fully fund all the costs associated with changes to governance and structures? Will he review the role of the funding council and look at how it can help to improve accountability and governance in Scotland’s universities and colleges?
There are elements in Mr Henry’s points with which I agree. There is a strong role for the funding council—its role will have to change and develop to match the new circumstances. Accountability is one of the issues that we are looking at. I hope that the Labour Party has responded to the post-16 consultation, which raised the issue of the funding council’s role.
I welcome Mr Henry’s views on changes in universities. I am grateful for the report on that, which we will take forward through discussion and consensus, because there are some very important things in it. A key point is that the accountability of universities is central to how we view universities in Scotland. There is a great deal in the report on which we can agree.
I also agree that charitable status is important, so we need to find the right way forward on that. There are a number of possible ways forward, and the view of Scotland’s Colleges is not the only important view in that regard.
I disagree on regionalisation, of course. It is not a shotgun marriage or a forced marriage: there has been a great deal of discussion about the proper regions. Indeed, the whole purpose of today’s statement is to respond to the report from Russel Griggs, which outlines the ideas for regionalisation and makes a very cogent argument for ensuring that it takes place broadly as I have outlined today.
On funding, I simply say this: as a Government, we are in a difficult position. We should have a normal funding situation in this country, but we do not. In discussion of funding in the chamber, with the Labour Party and everyone else, I have not heard on even one occasion a member say, “We will find the money here.” What they have said is, “Give us more money.” There is a solution to that. Give us independence.
I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of his statement. He said that the two reports have not been written on the basis of concerns about the failure of governance in either sector. Both reports recommend very radical reforms, which include ministerial oversight of the regional college board appointment process and the new constitutional regulations for university courts. If the cabinet secretary believes—as I know he does—that our universities and colleges are doing very well in their educational outcomes and international standing, why is he so intent on making these changes?
Secondly, can he confirm that Mr Alan Simpson was, in effect, representing the university chairmen rather than speaking on his own behalf, and that the chairmen have very serious concerns about the proposals for reform of university governance?
Finally, there are to be regional boards, and those boards—rather than specific colleges—will now receive Scottish funding council funding allocations. How does the cabinet secretary envisage that that will increase accountability in comparison with the existing system?
Those were three interesting questions. The first represents the very basis of Conservatism: a refusal to modernise and to change and a determination to stay where one is and to ensure that nothing gets better.
In 1993, we saw the incorporation of the colleges—
That was a Conservative reform.
In 1993, there was of course a Conservative reform to colleges—
It was a radical reform.
The radical nature of it was that it removed any—
I ask members to stop having conversations across the chamber.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me respond to those who have made remarks from a sedentary position. The nature of that reform was to remove any democratic accountability whatever, to drag the universities and colleges out of democratic accountability and to stuff them full of Tory cronies. That did not succeed in Scotland because there were not that many Tory cronies—there is a distinct lack of Tory cronies in Scotland, thank goodness. It is not the best model and we can move forward with a better model.
The Conservatives could and should welcome change and progressive thinking. However, on modernisation, they are against it; on the change to university structures and functions, they are against it; and on regional boards, they are against them. The Conservatives are defined by what they are against, not by what they are for. I would like their close involvement in, for example, the debate on university chairs. Alan Simpson was a representative of the chairs and he has issued a minority report that disagrees with three items. He has the right to do so and that debate will take place. I have spoken to one of the university chairs in the past week and have listened to his point of view. I have also agreed to meet other university chairs. Such debate and discussion is the hallmark of the Government’s involvement in educational reform. Reform is a good thing; it is only the Tories who are always against it.
There are many questions for the cabinet secretary. I ask members to keep their questions brief, and the cabinet secretary to keep his answers just as brief.
Ensuring that boards are representative of the communities that they serve will play an important part in guaranteeing that reform of post-16 education is a success. Indeed, Professor Griggs’s report makes some recommendations in that area. How will the Scottish Government progress those recommendations and ensure that all regional boards have a good level of staff and student representation on them?
That is a strong point. The regional boards and, I hope, the university courts must be cognisant of the fact that they serve a range of communities, which must be represented on and participate in the boards. I give the member a guarantee that staff and students will certainly be a part of the regional board structure.
I am pleased that the report has taken account of the views of staff, students and stakeholders at West Lothian College. There is almost unanimous support in the community for the college to be recognised as a region on its own. When will the cabinet secretary make a final decision on West Lothian College and what factors will he take into account in making that decision?
Neil Findlay makes a good point. The reason why I have not made a final decision is that a cogent argument to look at the matter in a different way is being put forward by the college, by West Lothian Council, by other partners, by the constituency member and by regional members. I am keen for us to get the right solutions in each part of the country. As I indicated briefly in my statement—I am happy to discuss it at greater length with any member, although not immediately—different patterns will emerge in different parts of the country. In Glasgow, for example, it is likely that senior-phase school education and university education will be involved. In West Lothian, a pattern that involves the community, the council, the college, Skills Development Scotland and others would be perfectly feasible. I will meet the council leader and others next week, and I would be happy to hear from those who have interests in the matter. If Mr Findlay would like to write to me on it, I would be happy to consider his representations.
In consulting on plans to reform post-16 education, the Scottish Government has consistently stated that local access to college education will be maintained. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that that is still the case and that the plans for further education governance that have been outlined today will help to achieve that?
Yes. The regional boards are about taking a strategic overview of what is delivered. They should allow the priorities within regions to be more closely focused on the requirements of the regions and, indeed, of parts of those regions. They are not about centralising provision or activity. I visited Angus College with Graeme Dey before Christmas. We saw the work that was being done locally and we saw an intriguing and innovative approach to ensuring that students in Angus who live distant from the college can make it to the college for classes. Colleges can and should be imaginative about a wide range of access issues. This is not about reducing local provision; it is about focusing local provision more closely on local need.
As a member for West Scotland, I have received a number of representations about the future of James Watt College, both in Inverclyde and North Ayrshire, as well as about Reid Kerr College and Clydebank College. It is crucial that students will have the same choice of subjects as they have at present. How will communities and students hold the colleges to account to maintain subject choice, and what guarantees can be given that the courses that are currently available locally will continue to be available locally, thereby avoiding lengthy travel for students who want to access a particular course?
I have just addressed travel in one area. Travel in the new west region will be an important issue. In a region that comprises Clydebank College, Reid Kerr College and the Inverclyde campus of James Watt College, travel issues will be raised. Through working together in the regional board, those colleges will be able to make more closely together strategic decisions about the courses that are delivered in the area.
At present, Clydebank College looks west to Dumbarton and has tended to look to Glasgow as well. If it looked across the river and took a different approach, that would require something of a reorientation, but it has entered voluntarily into the discussion. Such an approach might enhance the subject choice that is available to people who normally go to that college. It would certainly enhance the subject choice in Inverclyde, because Clydebank College has other specialisms.
There are lots of new opportunities. I am sure that the college principals, working with the regional board, will work out closely what is required and how they can deliver it.
The cabinet secretary will remember the many meetings that we have had about universities and particularly about the University of Glasgow, which is in my Glasgow Kelvin constituency. How will the plans that he has just outlined, such as those for electing the chairs of university courts, strengthen the system in courts and ensure transparency and accountability?
During the election campaign last spring, Sandra White and I were actively involved in discussions with the University of Glasgow. One issue that we all recognised then was that better dialogue was needed in the institution—the principal has accepted that in comments that he has made since then. The proposed changes are likely to produce that, as they will create a modernised university system that is based on a single statute, with accountability through the chair—if chairs are elected, which is up for discussion.
The proposal to have elected chairs is modest. It would involve a nominating committee that would deal with a limited number of candidates who would be offered to a limited electorate—although that electorate has still to be fully defined. We should remember universities’ wider responsibility to their communities. Election of chairs would be an additional democratic element in ensuring that universities are responsive. Modernising the underpinning statute for universities should also allow for that.
We have some distance to go, but we have started on the journey positively with Professor von Prondzynski’s report, which addresses the issues that arose last year, including the salary and accountability point that Mr Henry made.
Will the cabinet secretary spell out what autonomy, if any, individual colleges will have within the proposed regional board structure?
I am particularly concerned by the proposal to siphon off college reserves for central Government use, which comes on top of swingeing cuts. Will the cabinet secretary acknowledge that they are not necessarily rainy-day reserves and that they are the result of careful budgeting to support long-term planning and investment in our colleges? Will he approach that proposal with great caution?
There is no such proposal. I say charitably to Alison McInnes that both the points that she made are chimeras. There is no proposal to “siphon off ... reserves”. The question whether reserves should be part of the resource that colleges use when they undergo reform and transformation has arisen. As for “rainy-day reserves”, colleges that have reserves for new buildings and other matters will want to retain them, but colleges should invest in the future.
On autonomy, I have made it absolutely clear that colleges will continue to operate locally and serve locally. The member is either ill-informed or scaremongering; I hope that it is the former.
I note that, under the 12-region framework, the excellent South Lanarkshire College in East Kilbride will be part of the Lanarkshire region, along with three other colleges. Much negotiation over senior management positions will take place across Scotland, so does the cabinet secretary have a remit in, or view on, how management structures should be modelled in the interests of best value?
That question is important. I hope that, as discussions take place—especially when mergers are to occur—those who are involved will consider successful activity elsewhere. It is interesting that the City of Glasgow College has just established a resource to make more widely available all the information that was generated in the merger that created it, in order to allow people to study and learn from what took place. There have been other mergers from which we can learn; the merger has been a commonplace process in Scottish education in the past 30 years.
Perhaps the important thing to stress—Linda Fabiani was right to raise the point—is that the process of education is about learners; it is not about institutions or managers. If we keep that in mind, I am sure that good sense will prevail.
The cabinet secretary rightly mentions the amount of money that is spent, particularly in higher education. He will be aware that I have previously raised with him the issue of Audit Scotland’s scrutiny of spending in higher education. Does he expect that to be taken forward?
Following on from Linda Fabiani’s question, what assurance can the minister give us that negotiations on college mergers will not be influenced by the ambitions of college principals in relation to potential salaries or, indeed, severance payments?
I make the point again—I make it very genuinely—that the interests of learners and education must be paramount. I expect principals, boards and the rest of the system to recognise that. I have made it clear in one or two cases in which I thought that mergers became a matter of institutional preference because of managers that that was the wrong thing to happen. We need continually to bear that in mind.
With regard to the question about Audit Scotland, I remain open to ensuring that there is effective scrutiny of the actions of every public body. We should remember that, although there are substantial sums of money in the university sector, it is not a simple issue. For example, around 30 per cent of the budget of the University of St Andrews comes from Scottish Government sources, but the amount is around 80 per cent for the University of the West of Scotland, so there are differences in levels of scrutiny. The Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council needs to be part of that, but we should debate whether other organisations need to be involved. As we move towards legislation, I make it clear that I am interested in having that discussion. I am quite sure that the Education and Culture Committee will also wish to do so, as will others. When legislation comes along, there will be an opportunity not only to scrutinise it, but to amend it.
I welcome the cabinet secretary’s statement, and particularly his proposal that the Ayrshire region will include the colleges in Ayr, Kilmarnock and Kilwinning. Can he tell Parliament whether any problems remain to be overcome and will he note my view that the Kilwinning college campus should become part of a pan-Ayrshire college group, and that the appropriate funding should be directed—or, indeed, redirected—towards making that happen?
I am aware of the strong representations on the matter that have been made by local members. I wish that I had had time in my full statement to go through what will now take place. I spoke to the principal of James Watt College earlier this afternoon to inform her of this decision. It is not the decision that she wanted, but we had a useful discussion. We now need to get the mechanism to take the issue forward, as the member suggests.
I would perhaps seek a mechanism that would, first of all, give the lead responsibility for the Kilwinning campus to one of the Ayrshire colleges. Some 95 per cent of the students at the Kilwinning campus come from Ayrshire. Once that lead responsibility is in place, but with the payment of staff and other domestic arrangements still in the hands of James Watt College, a process of negotiation should take place for that asset and responsibility to move over time. The most important thing is that that process should not be disruptive to the students. If lead responsibility is part of a pan-Ayrshire structure, and financial and structural responsibility are negotiated over a period of time, we will handle the situation well and constructively. The principal gave me the commitment that the college would engage in those constructive negotiations.
Given the tight timescale that has been announced for the regionalisation, does the cabinet secretary share my concern that Coatbridge College was excluded from the recent joint statement by the management of the other three colleges on the creation of a Lanarkshire federation? Most importantly, what is the likely impact of the situation on my constituents with regard to course provision, travel and jobs? Will the cabinet secretary meet me to discuss my concerns?
I will meet Elaine Smith and another constituency member who has asked for such a meeting.
It would be a brave man who took sides in some of these disputes. I have seen the arguments from both sides. Those who read last week’s Times Educational Supplement will know that there are two sides to the issue. We need to sit down and discuss how the issue will move forward. The announcement today of the Lanarkshire regional board gives a context in which things can go ahead. It would be perfectly possible, within that regional structure, to have one merged college consisting of three coming together, and another college that is not merged. It would be up to the colleges to decide how they wanted to arrange that.
If, as seems to be the case, the colleges have a genuine interest in merger but some difficulty about how the merger will take place, a discussion could take place with the funding council and others to see how they might be of assistance.
How does the cabinet secretary’s statement on the future of FE governance fit into the wider objectives of the 16 to 19-year-old opportunities for all programme?
What I have announced is crucial to the delivery of opportunities for all. I am glad that the Minister for Youth Employment agrees with me on that. We have a joint responsibility to ensure that opportunities for all makes the contribution that we believe it can make in eliminating people who do not have positive destinations. The college sector, with SDS in particular, will be crucial in allowing that. We envisage a college sector that focuses on regional and employment need as being crucial, and what I have announced will produce that.
Will the cabinet secretary explain his logic in restructuring the colleges on a geographical rather than specialism basis while he extols the virtues of specialism over geography in the restructuring of the land-based colleges?
Life is made more exciting by paradox. There is a paradox in this case, and I am happy to explain it.
The land-based colleges demonstrated well to me their desire to work together. The colleges volunteered to work with the Scottish Agricultural College and are engaged in a merger process. It would have been perverse of me to stop that in its tracks and to tell them to do something different. In reality, the merger of the land-based colleges produces two issues that require to be addressed, one of which is how specialised colleges work together. Pinning that on the SAC’s involvement gives a structure.
Secondly, there is, in Elmwood College, provision that is not land based, and I have mentioned that that will require to be undertaken in the Fife region. However, there is a big opportunity. Indeed, I am sorry that Alex Fergusson did not ask about the opportunity in Dumfries and Galloway. One of the most exciting things in all the proposals is the possibility on the Crichton site—which I recognise is partially outwith the member’s constituency—of providing something that is unique in Scotland, which will possibly run from a sixth-form college through Dumfries and Galloway College to three universities, the Scottish Agricultural College and research institutes. That is tremendous, and I am very much looking forward to discussions that can help to take it forward. I hope that the member will help to do so.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that Scotland’s colleges have a social obligation to the communities in which they operate? Will he therefore meet me—as the convener of the cross-party group on learning disability—Enable Scotland and the Learning Disability Alliance Scotland to discuss the provision of courses, and student numbers throughout the country, so that some of our most vulnerable citizens can continue to access educational opportunities and fully participate in our society?
Of course I would be happy to meet the member and the cross-party group. I am regularly asked about that issue in colleges; indeed, it was raised when I was in John Wheatley College on Friday.
I make it absolutely clear that nobody—and I mean nobody—should be refused a place in college or university because of their disability. Colleges exist to help individuals to prepare for employment; that is what they are all about. Allowing and encouraging people to use the college sector to move forward is exactly what we should be doing. Therefore, I am happy to meet the member and his group.
The cabinet secretary acknowledged earlier that there are real concerns in the sector about the threat to charitable status from ministerial oversight of appointments to the chairs of colleges’ governing bodies, with the potential loss of £52 million per annum. What discussions have the cabinet secretary and his officials had with Scotland’s Colleges and the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator about the impact that those changes will have on charitable status?
The matter is not as simple as Murdo Fraser outlines. There is a charitable status issue, but there are other issues that affect the viability of colleges, and I am constantly engaged with all of them.
The member should wait to see what happens with the proposals. It was not particularly helpful for the matter to be made an issue today by Scotland’s Colleges. It should be more focused, as its members are, on ensuring that we agree the basis of regionalisation and move forward. Scotland’s Colleges sometimes needs to listen a bit more closely to the concerns of its members on the matter. To raise the issue today of all days was perhaps a little bit of a red herring.