Colleges (Funding)
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01876, in the name of Liz Smith, on college funding.
I invite members who wish to take part in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I remind all members that time is very tight, so they will get their allocated time and not a second more.
09:15
The sector in Scottish education that has made the most substantial progress in recent years is further education. It has delivered excellence in so many aspects of its institutions, transformed the quality of college courses and widened access to many students of all ages who in previous times would not have been able to take advantage of further education.
Lately, it has responded effectively to the need for reform and to the need to develop new structures that combine cost-effective models with the specialisation that is described in the Griggs report, which was published yesterday.
It was a Conservative Government that granted the colleges their independence in 1992, as a result of which they have enjoyed much greater autonomy and flexibility, and have been able to drive up standards, which I very much hope will not be threatened in the future.
As a Parliament, we pay tribute to that work and to the manner in which the colleges have coped with some very difficult challenges. Given that success, however, why have we each received thousands of e-mails from students, staff and trade union members expressing concerns about the future of our college sector and seen several question times in the Parliament and numerous column inches devoted to exactly the same issue?
At last Thursday’s education questions, the issue of college funding was raised in no fewer than seven out of 18 questions, but the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning—with his usual modesty—did not appear to be in the least bit concerned. Indeed, he even accused the Opposition parties of not accepting the truth about spending on Scottish education, of always looking back rather than forward and of not listening to what he was saying.
I am in a relatively charitable mood this morning. The Scottish Conservatives want to debate the truth about spending on Scottish education; we are happy to look forward rather than back, and we are even happy to listen to the cabinet secretary, however painful that may be.
We have before us the Budget (Scotland) Bill and the worthy supporting document over which I am sure Mr Swinney has expended—and, I hope, is still expending—much time and energy. If the cabinet secretary would like to have a look at page 24 of the supporting document, he will see what has happened to college funding.
I know that Mr Swinney will want me to put that in the factual context, so I will do just that. He has faced some tough choices: fact. He produced an extra £15 million transformation fund to help with college rationalisation and reform: fact. That £15 million therefore reduces year 1 of the budget cuts from £38 million to £23 million: fact.
However, let us dig a little deeper and pursue some of the other facts, which I suspect the SNP does not like quite so much. The consequences of the tough United Kingdom situation have resulted in a real-terms cut of 1.3 per cent—that is the Scottish National Party’s own figure—so it would be unfair of me to stand here and argue if Mr Russell had asked Mr Swinney to make similar savings in the Scottish FE budget.
However, what no one can understand—however hard they try—is why, at a time when there are no fewer than 88,000 young people aged 18 to 24 unemployed in Scotland, and when the Scottish Government has a flagship policy to provide a training opportunity, education or work for all 16 to 19-year-olds, the college sector is being asked to cope with cuts of 8.5 per cent in teaching grants on top of all the cuts that it faced last year. The colleges are being asked to cope with a cut in funding from £544 million to £470 million. There will be progressive cuts of £38 million in year 1—less £15 million—£50 million in year 2, and £74 million in year 3, so that by 2015 there is an annual cut of £74 million. They wonder what on earth they have done wrong.
At last week’s education questions, Mr Russell said that he would prefer politicians to listen to the experts in the college sector rather than deal in their own spin, so let us do that. John Spencer, convener of Scotland’s Colleges, has said twice that it is inconceivable that colleges will be able to absorb more cuts without harm being done to student places, staffing or the quality of courses. We now know that those cuts could amount to over 20 per cent in real terms, assuming that student support is maintained at a flat cash level. That view is echoed by Miles Dibsdall, principal of Edinburgh’s Telford College, who has said:
“To think that the sector could operate or indeed maintain provision after having our budget slashed by 10 per cent last year was challenging, but to have them reduced again over the next three years is just baffling. This is an incredibly difficult feat and I dread to think of what the sector will look like in a few years’ time when these new cuts are felt.”
Robin Parker of the National Union of Students has said that the SNP was absolutely right in May to promise to protect college budgets but “absolutely wrong” to be proposing such extensive cuts at a time of such large-scale youth unemployment—a view shared by Andy Willox of the Federation of Small Businesses.
Why has the Scottish Government chosen to punish the colleges so hard, particularly in the current economic circumstances?
The member asks about punishing colleges. Perhaps she can answer this simple question: why has the UK Government decided to punish Scotland so hard in its budget arrangement for the forthcoming three years ?
It is perfectly true that there are cuts south of the border, but the Scottish Government is responsible for the cuts north of the border, and that is what we are debating.
The Scottish Government simply cannot get away from the fact that 1,000 staff were shed in the FE sector last year and that several colleges have warned the cabinet secretary that more are likely to go this year. They are telling him very bluntly that many of the savings and efficiencies have already been made and that there is less and less scope for cuts without paring down some of the most essential parts of the sector. Colleges are looking at their budgets for 2012-13 and having to focus on the more expensive end of the scale, which is the 16 to 19 age group, since the higher costs of student support are to be found in that age group. That is on top of the real-terms cut of £11 million in student support. Many of those students are on national certificate courses at the start of the learning process and need more support, so there is surely a potential impact on some of our more vulnerable students.
What will happen to provision for part-time students, mature students and students with disabilities, who could, according to the Scottish Consortium on Learning Disabilities, lose up to 34 per cent of part-time places? Those groups are all essential to ensuring that we have a more mobile and flexible workforce across the economy.
The Scottish Government cannot claim any longer that there cannot be greater flexibility in its budget decisions about higher education and FE. It is nonsense to say that the college cuts are all the fault of the Westminster Government. The Scottish Government had a choice to make and got it wrong—and I think that it knows it has got it wrong. It was a political choice, and the responsibility for it must lie firmly with the cabinet secretary.
I return to where I began by praising the outstanding work that has been done by those in the college sector over recent years. They have coped admirably with the challenges placed on them, and they are undoubtedly a hugely important part of the post-16 reforms in building a more flexible and stronger economy. They should be congratulated rather than punished by a Government that has muddled its priorities and ended up with a total lack of coherence in FE and HE policy. They are fearful of further cuts and fearful of cutbacks in student places—or, if the places can be maintained, cutbacks in teaching time. They are fearful about whether exciting new projects will ever see the light of day, and they wonder just what mergers will mean to them. In short, there is considerable doubt that the college sector, which has made such outstanding progress, will emerge anything other than weaker at the end of the day.
Mr Russell told us last week that his Government is second to none when it comes to supporting student finances—far better than any previous Government north or south of the border and probably better than any arc of prosperity in the world, if Mr Russell had his way. He said that his budget figures are “impeccable” and that the budget settlement is “fair, full and final”. Well, I invite him to accept the seriousness of the situation that he has created, to swallow his pride and to cut through all the shameful bombast of the past few months. Colleges deserve our support, and I suspect that the vast majority of members in the chamber—even within the ranks of the SNP—believe that it is time for Mr Russell to ask Mr Swinney to reconsider his budget proposals.
I move,
That the Parliament warmly congratulates Scotland’s colleges in terms of the outstanding contribution that they have made to improving educational opportunities for a wide range of learners, improving the alignment between available skills and local employment opportunities and in embracing the need for structural reform; condemns the Scottish Government for forcing on the sector deeply damaging financial cuts for the period 2012-15, which are disproportionately greater in 2012-13, and which will inevitably have a detrimental impact on staffing, student places and support for students from more disadvantaged backgrounds; fails to understand how these financial cuts can be reconciled with the Scottish Government’s flagship 16 to 19 policy and the need to address the very worrying youth unemployment statistics that have revealed that 88,000 young people aged 18 to 24 are now out of work, and calls on the Scottish Government to urgently reconsider the proposed budget settlement for the further education sector.
09:25
We see something interesting this morning. The Tory press release that was issued moments ago includes this quote from Liz Smith:
“There is an overwhelming opinion across Scotland that the proposed cuts to the further education sector are excessive and will be deeply damaging when it comes to maintaining college places and staff numbers.”
I am interested in her opening phrase. I do not think that the Tories are in a position to talk about overwhelming opinions across Scotland because I do not think that they know them. I will tell members what the overwhelming opinion in Scotland is.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
No, I will not.
The overwhelming opinion in Scotland is in three parts. The first part is against the Tory-Liberal coalition and its cuts—that is the overwhelming opinion in Scotland. The overwhelming opinion in Scotland is also against paying for education. It was incredibly disingenuous of the Tory spokesperson this morning not to talk about raising money by raising student fees, which is her prescription for paying for education in Scotland. She has talked of it before, but she would not talk of it today. Why? Because she is in alliance with Labour, and Labour is edging towards that Tory policy as well. Maybe she wants to give Labour the advantage of it.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I will make a third point before I take Liz Smith’s intervention.
The overwhelming opinion across Scotland is also against hypocrisy and scaremongering about colleges, and we have heard more scaremongering this morning. I have regular meetings with the college principals and we are working together to ensure that we get the best out of the situation. Exploitation of them and of students is taking place in the chamber today—we have heard it from one side and we will hear it from the other shortly.
What more bombast can we have from the cabinet secretary on this? If the Conservatives had their way, there would be extra money in the HE sector that we would not have to put back into the college sector. That is exactly what the SNP policy has led to. The Government is punishing the colleges because it has not had enough money for the HE sector.
Let the vice speak its name. Is the member suggesting that the Tories would raise fees from students in Scotland? Yes or no?
Yes, absolutely.
Ah! There we are. Out of her own mouth she is condemned. Liz Smith is talking about raising fees in Scotland in order to pay for education. The people of Scotland rejected that absolutely in May and they would reject it again. It will be interesting to see whether Labour has the courage to continue with its policy against people paying for education or whether it is moving on to that dreadful, anti-Scottish, anti-educational track. [Interruption.] No—the Scottish tradition is free education and I stand proudly for it. I recommend that members read Iain Macwhirter’s column in today’s The Herald, in which he writes of a Scottish educational tradition that is, unfortunately, foreign to the Tory benches, which explains why the Tories languish where they do.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
No, I will not. I want to talk about the reality, not the fiction that the Tories have been involved in.
Let me give Parliament some facts. From 2007 until the end of the current spending review period, we will have invested £4.7 billion in colleges alone—40 per cent more, in cash terms, than the investment made under the two terms of the previous Administration. Although the spending review has been tough for colleges—the result of the unholy coalition that is trying to destroy Scottish education, among other things—we will continue to make a significant investment in the sector of more than £500 million in 2012-13.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
No, I want to make progress. I will let the member in in a moment.
By comparison, the UK Government is reducing its investment in English further education by £1.1 billion from £4.3 billion to £3.2 billion. That is a 25 per cent reduction in cash terms, which is 7 per cent higher than the reduction in Scottish sector funding over the same period. In other words, further education in England is having a real-terms cut of 32.3 per cent. That is a fact.
With regard to capital investment, non-profit-distributing investment in colleges represents an additional capital investment of £300 million. Through NPD, we will invest £200 million to build a new City of Glasgow College and are making a combined investment of £100 million to build new colleges in Inverness and Kilmarnock.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
The investment that we are making in 2012-13 and 2014-15 will be larger than in any single year of the previous Administration.
Moreover, I have listened closely to the sector’s views on the pace of reform. After all, this is reform; we need reform and the colleges know that. In response, I announced a £15 million college transformation fund, which has been welcomed by the NUS and Scotland’s Colleges.
In last year’s manifesto, we said that we would maintain student numbers—and that is what we will do. On 11 January, I wrote to colleges to confirm that no college will have a funding reduction of more than 8.5 per cent; indeed, I made it clear in that letter that the delivery of the commitments is based on published Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council baselines. Moreover, not only was I able to identify the 96 per cent of target numbers that we would maintain in a traditional way but, working with the sector and consistent with its suggestions, we are now moving to a different and more flexible provision for 4 per cent of places.
Our record on student support is second to none. As has been made clear in various letters, there is no reduction in the baseline for college student support. Baseline student support budgets have increased every year under the Scottish National Party—
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I will take Mr Findlay when I have finished this fact. Since 2006-07, we have increased college student support by 25 per cent from £67.3 million to £84.2 million whereas, in the previous four years, the previous Administration increased student support by just 8 per cent.
I give way to Mr Findlay.
You are in your last minute, cabinet secretary.
I am happy to take the member’s intervention.
Carry on.
That is very good of you, Mr Findlay. I am looking forward to your speech as part of the Tory-Labour alliance on this matter.
As part of our review on post-16 education, we are reviewing college student support to ensure that the balance between national policy and local discretion is right. That is why I met the NUS yesterday to discuss this issue. We have agreed to ensure that we move quickly to find a better way of paying FE student support that takes away some of the discretionary problems that were put in place by the Tories—of course.
We must ensure that, with the sector, we move forward on radical reform to get the best we can from the investment we make. That is our responsibility in this chamber. It is a great pity that only the SNP recognises that.
I move amendment S4M-01876.1, to leave out from “condemns” to end and insert:
“acknowledges the difficulties resulting from the UK Government’s cuts of over £3 billion to the Scottish block and the inescapable pressures that this creates for college budgets; welcomes the fact that the Scottish Government is ensuring that £265 million of capital investment in colleges is made over the spending review period, including through the non-profit distributing programme; further recognises that the support is in place to maintain student numbers in the coming year; commends the hard work and commitment of college staff and students at all levels, both to improve learner outcomes and to take forward the progressive programme of reform set in train by the Scottish Government, including its plans for a regional structure in which learning provision is better matched to need, and reiterates its support for the creation of 125,000 modern apprenticeships over the current parliamentary session and for the introduction of the Opportunities for All programme, which will provide a suitable place in learning or training for all 16 to 19-year-olds who require it.”
09:32
Labour disagrees with the Tories and the Liberal Democrats on many issues. However, it is arrogant to suggest that people elected to the Parliament who are doing their job and listening to concerns from staff and students across the country have no right to come to the chamber and raise those concerns.
What we have heard from the cabinet secretary this morning is another unfortunate example of what has happened since the election. There is an arrogance, an intolerance and a view among those now in government that no one—except them—has the right to speak for anyone in Scotland. That creeping intolerance will at some point lead to their saying that freedom of speech for the Opposition should no longer exist and that everything should be articulated only through them.
It is a given fact that Scotland’s colleges have an outstanding record of service delivery and success. No one can quibble with, for example, the 350,000 learners per year and the fact that 55 per cent of attendees are women who want to develop their skills and potential; that 30 per cent of students come from Scotland’s most deprived areas; and that 70 per cent of students who go into FE gain employment.
Now, with an unemployment crisis in this country, we need Scotland’s colleges more than ever. We need their expertise, their delivery and their success. Now, more than ever, is the time to invest in Scotland’s colleges.
In the past few months, we have heard a lot about preventative spending and the idea that spending now will mean that we will need to spend less on solving problems in the future. If that is the case, what better preventative spending could there be than investment in Scotland’s colleges, given the record that they have demonstrated? In Liz Smith’s motion, which I am happy to support, she clearly outlines some of the issues and, in her excellent speech, she detailed the scale of the problem that is looming. Some 88,000 18 to 24-year olds in Scotland are unemployed. Now, more than ever, we need to give that generation our support, and it is the colleges that will make the difference. If we fail them and do not give them the resources that they need, they will be unable to respond to the crisis that is confronting us.
Scotland’s Colleges has said that the cuts will make it increasingly difficult to protect the quality of college education and keep access to courses local and fair. We hear about choices that need to be made, and this is a choice. The SNP Government has chosen to allocate a certain amount to the education budget, and Mike Russell has chosen how to use his money within that budget. He has made the choice to deprive Scotland’s colleges—he and no one else. If he is not prepared to stand up for Scotland’s colleges, who else in the Government can we look to to defend those who have a proven record of success?
The Government is prepared to fund redundancy and unemployment, but it is not prepared to invest in creating opportunities for those who need education the most. It is not prepared to support young people from deprived areas, women who want to develop their skills and potential, or people with disabilities. Courses are being cut, choices are being limited, and workload is increasing. The Educational Institute of Scotland has described the reduction in staff numbers as a matter of significant concern.
What we are doing as an Opposition in the Parliament is telling the cabinet secretary to listen to the worries and concerns of the people who elected him and us because, frankly, they are the people who matter.
We move to the open debate. I am sure that members will take lessons from the front bench and keep to time.
09:38
In the stage 1 budget debate, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth was told by the Opposition to find extra resources for local government, housing, colleges, the air discount scheme, fuel poverty and road equivalent tariffs. In other debates in this session, it has been parts of the protected national health service, that hardy perennial the Glasgow airport rail link, active travel, police, roads and business rates cuts.
As the Tories were once so fond of telling us, we cannot spend what we do not have. If members want to sit there and wring their hands, that is their right. Members have a right to be heard in the chamber. However, unless they present solutions, they simply will not be taken seriously. This is familiar territory for the Labour Party, which always opposes as old Labour and governs as new, but it is unusual for the Conservatives, who have never tired of telling us about Labour’s deficit and, to paraphrase their favourite Prime Minister, the impossibility of spending other people’s money. That turnaround is the only new thing in the motion. We only have to look at it closely to see the real Conservative Party solutions.
Let me turn to a brief positive note. The Conservative Party manifesto was thin on colleges as it contained just one paragraph on the subject, but next to it we saw a welcome suggestion that universities could be encouraged to share administration on a regional basis. That was interesting. I take it that regionalisation is one thing that we can agree on.
The Conservative Party’s flagship policy for all tertiary education, of course, was to put a price tag of at least £6,000 on going to university. That initiative has been so successful that there has been a 10 per cent drop in numbers in England in just one year.
Perhaps the answer is to abolish the education maintenance allowance, as the Conservatives have done in England, and use that money to fund colleges. That really would be taking with one hand and giving with the other. EMA payments of £30 a week may seem small to a Tory MSP, but they can make all the difference to 14,000 college students.
If the Conservatives think that we should raise taxes to provide more funding to the public service that we are discussing, that really would be a turn-up for the books.
I could continue, but I could not discuss Tory hypocrisy on tertiary education in four hours, let alone four minutes.
Yesterday, Jim Eadie and I met students from colleges and universities throughout Edinburgh. We had a very worthwhile session. We talked about opportunities for all, which will give every young person aged 16 to 19 a place in education or training if they are not employed.
Will the member give way?
I am almost in my final minute.
We went over the Scottish National Party’s proud record. There has been record capital investment in the long-neglected college estate and an unprecedented expansion of student support. We explored the financial situation in depth, how places are protected, how the need for a transformation fund had been recognised, what the pressures are, and what the reality is. There is a fixed budget that has been set by another Government, with which the Conservative Party has more than a passing familiarity.
All members recognise the importance of colleges, the challenges that they face, and the difference that they can make. We have all seen that. However, when organisations come to us, it is not our role to pass a tissue and feel their pain. Rather, it is our role as MSPs to govern, make difficult choices and find solutions.
The Conservative motion is bandwagon politics of the worst kind. Many areas have a case for additional resources.
I am sorry, Mr Biagi, but you need to finish now.
If the Conservatives want us to spend more, they should realise that they are the problem.
09:42
I, too, thank Liz Smith for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I am glad that the motion
“congratulates Scotland’s colleges in terms of the outstanding contribution that they have made to improving educational opportunities for a wide range of learners”.
The importance of access to further education should not be underestimated at any time, least of all in times such as these, with youth unemployment at an all-time high.
This week, like every other week for the past few months, I have received e-mails from constituents who support NUS Scotland’s our future, our fight campaign. Over that time, I have met and actively listened to lecturers, principals and students, who share strong fears about the future of further education colleges in Scotland.
Members often hear that our young people are Scotland’s future. Nobody knows that more than the lecturers and support staff who work with young people every day in our colleges. However, those lecturers are also Scotland’s future. Many staff who have contacted me have many working years ahead of them. However, that is in theory, because between now and 2015, those staff stand to lose out in the same way as current and prospective students from a 20 per cent real-terms cut. With class contact time already down and class sizes being increased, the long-term consequences of those cuts are deeply worrying.
The people whom I have met also have concerns about the knock-on effects that could damage their educational opportunities—for example, students are concerned about being unable to afford travel to different campuses if the course that they want to do is withdrawn from the local college. The uncertainty about what courses colleges will be able to run is an issue that I regularly hear about from people who contact me. The cuts have already created that issue.
In addition, students and staff need to know about the future of their local community campuses. That is a particular worry for young parents I have met, many of whom wish to take FE courses. They have told me that they are worried that they will have an ultimatum to stretch their own finances further for the additional travel and childcare if community campus closures force them to go further afield.
I have touched on the concerns of students and lecturers. It would be folly of me not also to point out the importance of maintaining the employment of all the other staff who also contribute to the running of Scotland’s colleges—the maintenance and support staff are also concerned about the possibility that, as the lowest-paid workers, they will be the first to be squeezed as the budget cuts hit. We must remember the people who play a vital role in making sure that the campuses are clean and maintained for use and who also help students—particularly new students—to find their way around a new environment and engage with the college in general. Those members of our community worry that the future of their jobs is at risk. They, like the students and teaching staff, deserve to have full support in helping to build Scotland’s future, and do not deserve to lose their jobs as a result of what are clearly cuts to the FE sector.
09:45
Once again, the Conservatives come to the chamber claiming to be the guardians of students in the college sector but I am sure that, at 5 pm, they will once again be found wanting.
Not one person in the chamber this morning would wish to reduce the budgets for our further education establishments, but the Government needs to make tough decisions because the budget of the Parliament has been slashed by the UK coalition of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.
Will the member give way?
Normally, I would, but I have only four minutes.
The Conservative and Liberal Democrat members of the Scottish Parliament will, of course, defend their colleagues in Westminster by saying that this reduction is necessary as a result of the shambles of the UK public finances that was inherited from the previous Labour Government. Listening to Liz Smith this morning, the message that I received was that the FE cuts in Scotland should be proportionate. She later mentioned the fear of future cuts. We also heard from her that the way to ensure that there are no further cuts is for students to pay instead of having free education in Scotland.
I looked at the funding figures for the college sector going back to 1999. Then, £213 million and £4 million was spent on the resource and capital allocations respectively. In 2006-07, that had increased to £510 million and £88 million. Since 2007-08, the figures have increased until this year. However, as we all know, even though there were increases, that was never going to be enough for some in the chamber. Year after year, we heard and read of the complaints from some parties that the college sector was being short-changed, even though its funding allocation was increasing.
The commitment to maintain student numbers should be welcomed across the chamber.
The economic conditions in Scotland, across the UK and around the world, are difficult and, as a result, it is imperative that students who wish to attend colleges have that opportunity to improve their education, skills and employability.
At the same time as maintaining student places, we have a welcome opportunity for college reform. I understand that change can be frightening to some, as they are unsure of what will happen. However, the current college sector was established some 30 years ago, under the then Conservative Government with the aim of creating more competition within the sector. That had the inevitable effect of creating duplication. It also created institutions where there has been a level of strife between management and the lecturers, with the result being that students do not always obtain the level of education that they deserve. The history of James Watt College in Greenock over the past 10 years bears that out.
I remember taking part in a march and rally prior to the 2005 election in support of James Watt College and its students. Things settled down when the principal at that time left but, in recent weeks, lecturers have once again been on the picket lines and students have suffered. The strike has been suspended for two weeks for further talks, but the situation is one of great confusion and apprehension.
I am conscious of time, Presiding Officer.
The students and lecturers who have contacted me are raising issues not about the funding to the college but about how their college is being managed.
James Watt College is one of the colleges that have reached a no compulsory redundancy agreement, as was mentioned by Anne McTaggart. That was signed last May and is due to expire in June. I have been informed that management sent out a letter in October, indicating that 29 senior lecturers will lose their positions, with 15 learning enhancement lecturer positions being created instead, obviously on reduced terms.
Whether the issue is the funds that are going to colleges’ budgets or the money that colleges have themselves, we in the chamber should agree on how that money is managed. It should be managed efficiently and it should—
Your time has ended. I call Gavin Brown.
09:50
I have listened carefully to the SNP Government’s response. It is interesting to note its interpretation of matters. The SNP describes a 1.3 per cent real-terms cut to the overall Scottish budget as a slashing, burning and savage cut, but an 8.5 per cent cut to the college budget is described as fair and generous and as having resulted from tough choices.
In a speech that was, as ever, bombastic, Mr Russell said that he does not like hypocrisy. I have tried to intervene on every SNP member so far—I tried to intervene on him a number of times—but none of them accepted an intervention. I ask any SNP member to explain why a 1.3 per cent real-terms cut to the Scottish budget results in an 8.5 per cent cut to college funding.
We must look at the facts. Conservative members accept entirely that the Scottish Government will have less money in real terms next year than it has this year, but we point out that it will have more money in cash terms—£250 million more—than it has this year.
The reason why the issue is important and why the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens have joined in with the Conservative Party today is the terrifying youth unemployment figures. As Elizabeth Smith said, 88,000 people between the ages of 18 and 24 are unemployed. That figure goes to well over 100,000 when 16 to 24-year-olds are considered. That number is particularly bad because it has increased by 20,000 in the past nine months. Since the draft budget and the SNP manifesto were pulled together with the aim of maintaining student numbers, the youth unemployment situation has deteriorated. That is why we need action on colleges.
We have heard about the magnitude of the cuts. In year 1, the cut will be £38 million, but we admit and accept that that is negated by £15 million from the transformation fund. However, that fund is for one year only. The cut will be £50 million in year 2 and will go up to £74 million in year 3. We ask the Scottish Government to explain why Scottish colleges will get such a large cut in their budget in comparison with the size of the overall cut. That is about political choices from the SNP; it should not blame the Westminster Government for cutting the budget as a whole.
We welcome the moves on youth unemployment that the Scottish Government announced yesterday in its draft strategy and we support the appointment of Angela Constance as the Minister for Youth Employment, but we need a bit of joined-up government. When we are trying to tackle youth unemployment, what is the point in giving Angela Constance a budget of £30 million while at exactly the same time taking away £40 million from the college budget?
I note that college funding will not decline in next year’s Welsh budget. That comes back to the point that the Scottish Government must explain why it thinks that the college budget deserves such a large cut next year in comparison with other parts of the Scottish budget.
We have heard that a multitude of organisations and people across Scotland are fighting for the colleges. The Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Liberals and the Greens are all telling the cabinet secretary in advance of stage 3 that the budget should provide more money for colleges. Will he—
I am afraid that your time is up.
09:54
Last year, the Government published “Putting Learners at the Centre: Delivering our Ambitions for Post-16 Education”. The ministerial foreword to that document quotes John F Kennedy, who said:
“our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progress in education.”
The foreword also says:
“Education ... plays a central role in improving ... chances for those from disadvantaged backgrounds and learning in all its forms and settings has a wide reach.”
The SNP Government is absolutely committed to education and to improving outcomes for all our young people, especially those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, whether it be through early years intervention and the preventative spend agenda, extending nursery places to those from disadvantaged backgrounds, giving people the opportunity to gain further education, or the appointment of a minister who is dedicated to tackling youth unemployment and ensuring that all our 16 to 19-year-olds get opportunities from the programme. That means all our 16 to 19-year-olds, including people who have disabilities and women.
The draft strategy that was published yesterday sets out a clear and targeted approach to supporting young people as they are looking for employment and fulfilling their ambitions in life. It focuses on opportunities in the apprenticeship programme, which our colleges will support, and it targets support on helping young people in our new and emerging commercial opportunities, especially in the area of the low-carbon economy. It also looks to Skills Development Scotland working in partnership with our colleges and employers, and changing the way in which we deliver our further education programme to ensure that it meets the needs of our employers and improves the life chances of our young people.
We have also included an early years action fund, run by Inspiring Scotland, to improve outcomes for our vulnerable young people. I am delighted that, in one of her first announcements as the Minister for Youth Employment, Angela Constance targeted her support at young carers and those who are leaving the care system so that further education opportunities are made available to them.
I listened to members’ speeches. I agreed with the start and end of Liz Smith’s speech and her wonderful praise for our further education colleges. That is absolutely right, but establishing the independence of our colleges caused problems. Their charitable status is flawed because of the possibility of Government influence and direction on how the colleges should proceed, and it sets up competition between the colleges.
Many things in our colleges need to be looked at, especially student support. When they go to college, students should be able to expect that there will be no discretionary element to their support. The regionalisation and pulling together of resource should enable us to tackle some of those issues.
You have only a few seconds left. Please conclude.
I am convinced that the regionalisation model will give the opportunity to reform and improve our college sector.
09:58
We have heard a lot recently about Scotland being progressive and a beacon for others. Like most SNP soundbites, that claim is more about self-serving and rhetorical trumpet blowing than factual analysis of its policies. Child poverty in Scotland is increasing while the SNP Government is giving handouts to millionaire bus owners through the council tax freeze. It takes the biggest of brass necks to proclaim that that is progressive. Add to that the funding proposals that prefer the university sector to our colleges and the propensity to look after the already better-off shines through yet again. Once more, the haves are looked after at the expense of those for whom university education is too often an unrealisable aspiration, even for those who have the ability to go on to higher education. What sort of progressive budget is it that cuts college funding while protecting the share of the likes of Mr Russell’s alma mater?
While Mr Russell was enjoying the benefits of University of Edinburgh tutelage, as a lesser mortal I was leaving school at the age of 15 to take up an apprenticeship as a welder. I wanted to go to university and my teachers tried to convince to me stay on to achieve that aim but, for me and the majority of my peers, getting a good trade was the level of aspiration set for us by the financial reality of the family income.
My education continued through day release at Motherwell College. I was able to achieve the highest level possible in City and Guilds, and I am eternally grateful for the solid grounding that the college gave me. Fifteen years later, with manufacturing going through the floor under the Thatcher regime, I began to look for an alternative career path and was fortunate to obtain a place at Cambuslang College on a higher national certificate course in social sciences that was made available through a partnership with the University of Paisley and Glasgow Caledonian University. Completion of the HNC guaranteed access to second year on the social sciences course at either of the two higher education institutions and in 1996, 19 years after leaving school, I graduated with honours in politics and sociology at Glasgow Caledonian University. I know at first hand the value of both college and university education.
Recently, the Finance Committee has discussed the sustainability of funding. It came as no surprise that someone such as Jim Gallagher said:
“if we do one thing, what else are we not doing?”—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 25 January 2012; c 579.]
It is clear that this Government has chosen to fund universities and not colleges but, for me, one cannot be protected at the expense of the other. That is why, when the SNP was bragging about its progressiveness, I was standing in the forecourt of Motherwell College with the staff and students, who had come together to protest at the funding cuts that will inevitably lead to staff cuts, cuts to courses and hardship for students.
Their choosing colleges as the subject of this morning’s debate shows that even the Tories can see the need for equitable treatment. Yes, there are budgetary restraints, but we cannot allow ourselves to be forced into agreeing with a Government that, because of populist decisions, looks after its own and forgets those who might be left behind. It is not too late for the cabinet secretary to see the error of his ways and become a genuine progressive. I ask him to give our colleges a fair funding settlement and to give everyone a chance to be what they can be.
10:02
I congratulate Liz Smith on bringing the motion to the Parliament and helping to maintain the focus on an issue on which I genuinely believe that there is a consensus across the parties, which includes some SNP back benchers. Although this further opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s planned cuts to the funding of Scotland’s colleges is welcome, I am increasingly perplexed by the cabinet secretary’s approach.
During last week’s stage 1 debate on the Budget (Scotland) Bill, Mr Swinney assured the Parliament that he was open to further discussion on how the budget might be improved. In response, the consistent message to Mr Swinney was that housing and colleges should be the principal beneficiaries of the substantial additional resources that the UK Government had made available since the publication of the budget but, despite Mr Swinney’s offer and cross-party support for the needs of his portfolio, 24 hours later, Mr Russell told the chamber that he thought that the £40 million cut to college budgets over the next three years was
“a fair, full and final settlement”.—[Official Report, 26 January 2012; c 5795.]
That seemed to be a remarkable admission of defeat.
As well as the evidence from Scotland’s Colleges about the effect that the cuts will have on the quality, accessibility and affordability of college provision across Scotland, and the warning from NUS Scotland that
“colleges may be forced to close their doors to new students ... and cut support to existing students”,
Mr Russell could pray in aid the support of the Parliament’s Education and Culture Committee in making the case to Mr Swinney for a rethink, yet the more he is pressed, the more Mr Russell digs in his heels.
Of course, Mr Russell chooses to blame Westminster, but ignores the fact that, according to the Scottish Parliament information centre, the Scottish ministers have an additional £850 million at their disposal since the 20 per cent real-terms cut to college budgets was first announced. In addition, Mr Russell represents those who challenge him as being anti-reform. That is untrue—the need for reform is accepted, and colleges have stressed their willingness to work constructively to that end.
However, as Scotland’s Colleges points out, that
“should not come at the expense of the quality or breadth of provision for college students.”
In return, colleges require a fair deal, which recognises that cost savings take time to realise, that success in reforming the sector depends on the way in which reform is introduced and that the array of commitments that ministers have made cannot be achieved on the cheap. It is wholly unreasonable for ministers to make commitments and set priorities without willing the means to achieve those ends.
On the proposed cuts, which follow last year’s 10 per cent cut, Scotland’s Colleges has warned that
“The impact on the quality of provision, the availability of student support services, and the loss to expertise, capacity and morale present in the sector through losing staff cannot be overstated.”
It is not hard to see why, given that evidence is emerging that the value of weighted student units of measurement is likely to fall dramatically between 2009-10 and 2012-13. While Mr Russell emphasises a commitment to maintain college places, colleges question how on earth quality can be maintained under such circumstances.
Meanwhile, NUS Scotland expresses similar concerns about what amounts to an £11 million cut in student support budgets. Mr Russell disputes those figures but, as NUS Scotland points out, the SNP manifesto pledge was unequivocal and Angela Constance confirmed that the SNP would
“guarantee the additional funding for bursaries, not just for next year, but for the full four-year parliament.”
To make matters worse, uncertainty over individual allocations makes planning difficult, if not impossible, for colleges and students alike. Mr Russell must clarify when colleges will be told their final budgets, including any strategic allocation from the funding council and how the additional funds from SDS will be allocated.
Scotland’s colleges are critical to addressing the issues that were highlighted at yesterday’s timely summit on youth unemployment. They improve the life chances of thousands of people of all ages in all parts of the country. They provide students with the skills that they need to get up and get on and they deserve a fairer deal from the budget.
On that basis, I am happy to support the motion.
10:06
I remind members that the Scottish Government has managed to maintain in Scotland a truly progressive approach to further and higher education, which is based not on the ability to pay, but the ability to learn. In doing so, it has managed to preserve student numbers and maintain the education maintenance allowance, and will provide £265 million of capital spending over the next spending review period.
That progressive approach has served Scotland well since the days of the enlightenment and is all the more important today, when we seek to reindustrialise Scotland with emerging technologies. I accept that we need skilled people to drive that forward and our commitment to colleges must be one of the most important investments that we make. However, the achievements that I mentioned—EMA, student numbers and the additional capital investment—have been made despite the fact that we face a falling block grant from the Government at Westminster, with its emphasis on austerity and a reduction of about one third in the capital budget.
Will Roderick Campbell give way?
No, I have only four minutes.
This is a Conservative debate. I read the Conservatives’ manifesto from last year’s election, “Common Sense for Scotland”. It is a 36-page document but has a short paragraph at the bottom of page 14 that outlines the Conservatives’ plans for colleges:
“We want to encourage greater scope for colleges to work with local schools, universities and businesses to enhance their economic and social contribution and to open up new opportunities to students through better integrated learner pathways.”
I hope that members did not blink, because that appears to be the Conservatives’ plan for Scotland’s colleges.
As I said, one of the defining characteristics of the Scottish Government is its progressive vision of Scotland, which stands in stark contrast to the miserable mix that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition proffers the people of England.
Let us remember that the SNP is investing in excess of £500 million in colleges in 2012-13. From the day that the SNP Government came to office in 2007 up until the end of the spending review period, it will have invested £4.7 billion in further education.
Meanwhile, the UK Government is directing a 25 per cent real-terms cut at further education in England between 2010 and 2015. That is massive, disproportionate and twice the size of the cut in Scotland. Couple that with the trebling of tuition fees in England and I am sure that Scotland’s college students share my relief that the days of direct Tory control over further and higher education in Scotland are a distant memory.
However, events do not stand still. The plans for regionalisation that are detailed in “Putting Learners at the Centre” and in Russel Griggs’s report, which was announced yesterday, will change the nature of the FE sector in Scotland. Those plans will, I hope, make the sector more responsive to skills demands, particularly in the green sector. They will also help to ensure that colleges are in the best position to deal with the difficult public finances that the country faces.
In my constituency, which is served by Elmwood College, there will be regionalisation of the non-land-based provision while the college pools its resources with the Scottish Agricultural College and others to provide a land-based specialism. There may be a paradox between the two approaches, as the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning said yesterday, but it is geared towards delivering a modern and efficient further education system. There is, of course, no threat to the campus at Elmwood.
We have spoken a lot about college funding. I sensed a touch of confusion between price and value. We have also spoken about youth unemployment. Of course youth unemployment is too high. That is why we established a Minister for Youth Employment and the opportunities for all programme. We need to look at matters in context—
I am afraid that I must ask you to conclude.
We will be preserving the total number of college places.
I call Neil Findlay. You have a maximum of four minutes.
10:10
Michael McMahon, Liz Smith and Anne McTaggart set out well the terrific work that colleges do and the need for the services that colleges provide. I am a product of West Lothian College, where, like Michael McMahon, I was taught craft skills when I was an apprentice and where I studied at night school to gain the qualifications that I needed to go to university. Later, I undertook leisure classes at the college.
We need colleges at all times and especially at times of significant and rising unemployment, as Gavin Brown said. Yet here we are, discussing serious and disproportionate cuts to the colleges budget that will have far-reaching consequences for institutions’ ability to deliver the courses of which we have been speaking so highly. It is completely illogical to cut college funding at such a time. We have been told time and again that it will be impossible to maintain courses and places.
I thought that the Government would pull the consequentials rabbit out of the hat and ensure that colleges got additional funding. I honestly thought that the Government had got the message. We know that the cabinet secretary likes nothing more than the sound of his own voice, but I thought that he would have heard very clearly the voices of the 70,000 students who have contacted members of this Parliament, and the voice of the NUS, beside whose representatives he was glad to be photographed signing the NUS pledge before the election.
Will the member give way?
No chance. I have four minutes.
It appears that the cabinet secretary has not heard those voices. His ears are closed. Let us be clear: he has taken a deliberate political choice on the matter and he cannot blame anyone else.
The cabinet secretary has made much of his £15 million transformation fund, but what is the money for? It is not a transformation fund; it is a redundancy fund. It is a sacking fund and a job-losses fund. The only thing that will be transformed is people’s status; they will go from being employed to being unemployed. That is the cabinet secretary’s transformation fund.
Despite cuts of 8.5 per cent or 10 per cent—depending on the figures that we look at—we are told that colleges have been instructed to maintain student numbers at 96 per cent and that SDS will make up the 4 per cent shortfall. Presiding Officer, I do not know whether you are an economist or a mathematician; perhaps you can help me out. It strikes me that a college that loses 18.5 per cent of its teaching grant over two years will find it somewhat difficult to retain courses, places and staff. Liam McArthur exposed the issue well.
It is appalling that college principals still do not know what their budgets will be for next year, even though it is February. They were promised the news in December. Perhaps someone will tell us today when they will get the news of their budget allocations.
In November the cabinet secretary attended a seminar at Dunblane Hydro. As a result of a freedom of information request we received information about what was said. These are comments from the people whom the cabinet secretary charges with delivering the changes:
“The reform program is not being pursued on the basis of evidence. There seems to be no concrete evidence that a regional model will deliver better results. This invites the view that the reforms are about saving money alone”.
“The pace of the reform is far too quick.”
“Considering cuts to funding, Government has unreasonable expectations of the sector.”
The cabinet secretary tries to kid us on that it will all be fine. We know that that simply does not stack up.
10:14
Let me start with the one area of agreement in the Parliament today—with the exception of the personal abuse, which I will not get involved in—[Interruption.]
Order, please.
It was interesting to hear personal abuse, because I know—and other politicians, such as the Conservatives, know—that when the argument is thin the abuse always comes out, which is what happened.
Our one area of agreement is that colleges in Scotland are very much needed and very much valued. However, that does not mean that they are immune from the cold winds that are circulating in the entire economy, which were fanned first by Labour and then by the Tories and Liberal Democrats. The kindest thing to say about Mr Findlay is that he lacks understanding of public finances. He believes that there is some “consequentials rabbit”. Well, there is no consequentials rabbit, okay? Labour shot it and the Tories have eaten it. If Mr Findlay is looking for a consequentials rabbit, he will spend a lot of time looking into black holes, because it is not there. We are faced with the reality of financing.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
No, I will not give way to Mr Brown. I have heard too much from him this morning, and it has all been nonsense.
The fault lies in the UK economy, the funding of the Parliament and the unnatural nature of the constitutional settlement. If we had a constitutional settlement that allowed the Scottish Government and Parliament to spend and raise money in a normal way, we would not be having this debate. However, we do not have such a settlement. The extraordinary situation is that the Opposition parties know that, but cannot admit it to themselves.
There has been no answer whatever on where the money will come from. We have simply had constant complaint. I want more money for all education.
No, you do not.
Yes, I do. Unfortunately, we are going to have a pantomime, because I will simply reply: “Yes, I do.”
No, we are not.
No, indeed. Probably, Mr Brown will see the consequentials rabbit hopping across the chamber somewhere.
The reality is that there has been not one indication of where the money will come from. We are facing the reality. It is the college sector, not the Opposition, that is rising to the occasion and taking forward a difficult programme professionally and well to ensure that the places and quality continue.
As I have only a short time to speak, I will simply set out 10 facts that indicate the reality. First, from 2007 to the end of the current spending review, we will have invested £4.7 billion in colleges, which is 40 per cent more in cash terms than the investment that was made under the two terms of the previous Administration. Secondly, south of the border, in England, there is a 25 per cent reduction to further education in cash terms and a 32.3 per cent cut in real terms, which is coming from the Tories and Liberals. Thirdly, the Scottish Government’s NPD investment in colleges represents additional capital investment of £300 million at a time when the resources that are available to us are declining. Fourthly, those planned developments, together with our on-going capital spending, will ensure that the value of our capital investment each year will be larger than that in any single year of the previous Administration.
Fifthly, in our manifesto last year, we said that we would maintain student numbers and college student support, and that is exactly what we are doing. Sixthly, there is no reduction in the baseline for college student support. We have written to all college principals to make it clear that the student support budget will be maintained at the record baseline level that the Scottish funding council published in December 2010.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention on that point?
No.
Seventhly, we have increased college student support by 25 per cent since 2006-07, from £67.3 million to £84.2 million, whereas in the four years prior to that, the previous Administration increased student support by just 8 per cent. Point 8 is that we have protected the education maintenance allowance, when the UK Government has scrapped the scheme for students in England, which has a direct effect on colleges. Ninthly, we will ensure that every single 16 to 19-year-old has a place in learning and we will prioritise college places for 20 to 24-year-olds. Finally, recent figures show that 88.9 per cent of school leavers are going to positive destinations, such as work, training or education, which is a 2 per cent increase on last year and an overall increase of nearly 5 per cent.
I am strongly behind the college sector. [Interruption.] The difference between me and the empty vessels that are cackling away among the Tories is that I am working with the sector to ensure productive and positive change. I am not indulging in the class war that we heard about this morning, and nor am I doing the dangerous thing that we heard from Mr McMahon, who actually talked down the achievement of our universities. I am solidly in favour of colleges and universities and the progress of education in Scotland, and I am proud to be a member of a Government that is driving that forward. We will drive it forward successfully and we will see the results.
10:19
I am grateful to all members who have contributed to the debate. Its level and intensity reflect the public interest in and concern about the subject, which is demonstrated, as many members said, by the thousands of communications that each of us have received from across Scotland.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will make some progress first, if I may.
We have become used to debating the SNP’s broken promises in the chamber. As Neil Findlay just reminded us, every SNP MSP in the run-up to the election signed up to NUS Scotland’s reclaim your voice campaign, pledging to protect graduate numbers and college places, to improve student support and to rule out tuition fees. It is arguable that the SNP has failed even on that third point, due to the hike in fees for students coming to Scottish universities from the rest of the UK. There can be no dispute, however, that the SNP is breaking its promise on the first two points.
We have seen a typically robust defence from the cabinet secretary this morning. The word “bombastic” has been a bit overused in the debate, but it came straight from the Michael Russell textbook: the first line of defence is to accuse your opponents of distortion and scaremongering. There are tens of thousands of e-mails that tell a different story. That is not distortion and scaremongering; it is a reflection of genuine concerns.
We have only to listen to those in the sector, such as Hugh Logan from Motherwell College, who talked about the “deeply disturbing” cuts, or John Burt from Angus College, who talked about a
“severely impaired ability to deliver for future learners”;
or NUS Scotland, which has said that it is “deeply concerned” by the situation. I say to the cabinet secretary that that is not scaremongering. That is representing people’s concerns, which is what we are paid to do in this chamber.
Given the volume of contact that members have had with people on the issue, does Mr Fraser not find it astonishing that in a debate as emotive as this we have not heard a single utterance of criticism from any SNP back bencher? Is that not astonishing?
I am long past the point of being astonished by the meekness of the SNP back benchers. I hope that one day they may find their collective backbone.
I will move on to the second line of the Michael Russell textbook defence: blame somebody else. In this case, he blames the UK Government for the budget settlement. However, as we heard from Gavin Brown and others, the Scottish Government’s budget has been cut by 1.3 per cent in real terms, but Mr Russell’s cut to colleges is 8.5 per cent. That is a choice that the SNP and no one else has made.
John Swinney told members in the chamber last week that the consequentials were £130 million. The only rabbit in sight is the cabinet secretary caught in the headlights of this debate.
The third, final and desperate line of defence from the Michael Russell textbook is that if all else fails, you descend to the gutter and accuse your opponents of being anti-Scottish. We have heard that from SNP back benchers before, but to my knowledge this is the first time that we have heard that particular line from an SNP cabinet secretary. The mask has slipped this morning and the true, ugly face of the SNP has been exposed. I say in all seriousness to the cabinet secretary, for whom I had a great deal of respect, that I expected better from him. I hope that in a moment of quiet reflection he will realise that to call into question the patriotism of his political opponents just because they take a different view on a political issue is unworthy of him and his party.
Of course, that is a typical tactic of the Tories. The point to which Mr Fraser refers is my allegation that the Scottish tradition of free education is so important that to put it in jeopardy risks the whole of Scottish education. I have said that repeatedly and I will go on saying it, because it happens to be true. If the member is proposing fees he should say so, because that is against the Scottish tradition of higher education.
That is a pathetic attempt to wriggle out of the expression of abuse in the chamber. Accusing his opponents of being unpatriotic is beneath him. I had hoped that he might apologise, but it says much about the man that he missed that opportunity.
Hugh Henry was absolutely right that it is not just the SNP that speaks for Scotland. Its overwhelming mandate in May last year represents less than 23 per cent of the population. There are other voices in Scotland that should be heard and not dismissed.
Far from improving student support—Liam McArthur made a fair point about this—we are seeing cuts to bursary funding. The cabinet secretary uses weasel words when he talks about the baseline. The facts are simple: we are seeing an £11 million real-terms cut in bursary funding. I remember working on a cross-party basis in the previous Parliament with NUS Scotland to deliver an additional £15 million of bursary funding, but that is now being reversed. That breaks a clear promise in the SNP manifesto, which says:
“For the future, we will protect the advances already made.”
As Liam McArthur reminded us, in February 2011, Angela Constance, the then Minister for Skills and Lifelong Learning, said in a press release:
“I can confirm we will guarantee the additional funding for bursaries, not just for next year, but for the full four-year parliament.”
Nothing could be clearer than that; it is yet another SNP broken promise.
It is no excuse to say that those promises have been broken because of a difficult budget settlement. The SNP was well aware, going into the election in May, exactly what the funding settlement was. The SNP made the choice to cut student support—no one else did that for them. We know why that choice was made. The money that could have gone into colleges has been diverted into higher education because of the SNP’s dogmatic opposition to a graduate contribution. Despite everything that we have heard from the cabinet secretary, the Scottish social attitudes survey in December could not have been clearer. Only 20 per cent of people in Scotland support the proposition that students should have to pay no fees. Every choice has a consequence, and we are seeing the consequences for college funding of that choice by the Scottish Government.
As we heard from Hugh Henry and other members, there could not be a worse time to cut college places. Youth unemployment has doubled since the SNP came to power in 2007. Young people do not want to sit at home doing nothing if they cannot find jobs, as is the case, sadly, for all too many of them. They want the opportunity to take up college and training places, which is why it is so short-sighted to cut back on college funding now. Unless the SNP is prepared to change its ways, the consequences of its actions will be with us for many years, with a lost generation of young people.
In the budget next week, the SNP has the opportunity to put matters right. I hope that despite all the noise and bombast that we have heard in the debate this morning, in a moment of quiet reflection in the few days that remain before the budget is finalised, the SNP will listen to the voices in the debate and take the right steps to restore funding to our colleges and support our young people.