Further Education
The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-04914, in the name of Michael Russell, on further education. Cabinet secretary, you have 14 minutes.
14:30
On Tuesday, I apologised to the chamber for the answer that I gave to Mr Malik on 28 June. I repeat that apology now. The mistake should not have happened and I take full responsibility for it, but I do not believe that it should be allowed to distract us from the real issues facing our young people and our further education sector. Larry Flanagan of the Educational Institute of Scotland suggested last weekend that all of us should move on to discuss those issues. That was a wise suggestion then and it is even wiser now.
According to the BBC’s Seonag Mackinnon, a similar point was made by Unison when it asked that the debate focus on
“places and college services rather than a political bunfight over who said what to whom.”
Today, I want to talk about the continuing achievements of colleges in providing the economically relevant learning and training that people need to get a job, to prosper and to contribute to the future of our country. That is what the post-16 reform programme will achieve.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Could I just make a little bit of progress?
I want to encourage a genuine dialogue that seeks to intensify our national focus on meeting the genuine needs of our learners.
I agree with Mr Russell whole-heartedly about moving forward on the challenges that face the colleges but after all the events of recent weeks, does he believe that he is the right man to take that forward?
I do, and I shall explain that in my speech. I thank the member for his intervention.
In having the type of debate that we have to have, we must start by recognising that the current context is one that certainly makes change difficult, but also makes it essential. Such change is taking place throughout these islands; indeed, I note from today’s Irish Independent the headline
“No extra cash for colleges without reform”,
which is a quote from the Irish Minister for Education and Skills, Ruairi Quinn.
There will be different solutions in different places but the problems are very similar. However, this debate—and I—must also be mindful of the events of the past fortnight in this place and elsewhere. I accept the point made by Liam McArthur during the week that this renewed focus on further education should give the Government and the Parliament an opportunity to consider our approach afresh, to assure ourselves that our aims are capable of being met and to look at changes of style or substance as required. That is why I was keen to agree to having a debate today, as suggested originally by Mr McArthur.
As minister, I have engaged closely with the college sector over the past year—that has been crucial in delivering the reforms that have taken place so far—but I want to scale up that effort and to listen even more as we go forward. Let us start with priorities. My priority is education and opportunity based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay. Liz Smith is entirely entitled to argue, as she did in the debate last week, that extra funding should be found for colleges by charging university students for their education. I profoundly disagree with that position and I think that the evidence from south of the border bears out the contention that such an approach drives out the poorest students and those least likely to go to university.
Applications to study at university are down by more than 20 per cent in parts of the United Kingdom, with a drop of 10,000 in the number of young people applying from the north-east of England. Applications from Scottish students, meanwhile, are marginally up.
However, there is a another strong reason why I do not believe that this is an appropriate approach for Scotland and Scotland’s college sector. The illustration is this—the National Union of Students correctly highlights that from next year, those in England aged 24 or over who want to take a level 3 apprenticeship can look forward to the prospect of having to take out a loan to go to work. That is not a situation that I want to see imported into Scotland. Here, our fee waiver and tuition fee support regime make the situation vastly preferable, to the benefit of tens of thousands of our college students.
Indeed, figures from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills make it clear that budgets for FE in England were projected to fall by £200 million between 2011-12 and 2012-13. That is a projected fall of 5 per cent, compared with the actual fall in Scotland of 1.7 per cent.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Can I just make some progress, please? I have a lot to say and I will bring the member in.
Yes, funding is tight and decisions are hard, so how we react to them is crucial. We have to ensure that college funding is able to support the tasks that we really need to be done in Scotland.
I will briefly outline those tasks. In last week’s debate, I identified five areas in which college reform was needed. First, reform has to help young people. We need to focus our system much more closely on employability and we need more courses that are fully focused on employment as the outcome—that is demanded by the economic circumstances that we are in. The sector therefore needs to help employers more. They require courses and students who are better prepared for, and ready to undertake, actual work.
We must also be mindful of those who work in the sector. There is presently a complete Balkanisation of terms and conditions, with at least 42 different sets. I am keen to continue my dialogue with trade unions on those matters, and I commit myself to that. I think that the reforms will ultimately benefit staff; I know that many of them, while disagreeing with some or all aspects of change, concur with that view. For a start, staff will have the right to representation on boards and there should be a national set of terms and conditions—two things that are long overdue.
Our present system, established by the Tories 20 years ago, also excludes local authority employees and elected members from chairing boards, and precludes those over 70 from appointment. It creates circumstances in which boards can become self-perpetuating, sometimes because they just cannot find new blood. We need to open them up to much wider influences.
Finally, that also means taking a wider strategic view. The college sector must serve communities and regions and be mindful of the need for joined-up provision.
On the cabinet secretary’s point about the wider view, given that he now admits that his budget was cut in last year’s negotiations with his Cabinet colleagues, what is his strategy for this year’s budget negotiations?
The strategy, as ever, is to continue to deliver for the young people of Scotland; that is my focus, and it will continue to be my focus.
Within that context, though, there is much that needs to change. I recognise the difficulties caused by reform taking place at a time of budget pressure, which is a point that has been made. Despite the difficult financial position that we face over the spending review, the Scottish Government has added to the baseline budget for the sector: in 2011-12, we found an additional £11 million; in 2012-13, there was a further £39.5 million; and for 2013-14, we have already provided £17 million. Overall, we have improved the situation by returning to college budgets some £67.5 million over those three years. That is £67.5 million that we have managed to avoid cutting. I intend to continue with those efforts into 2014-15, if I can.
The cabinet secretary said that he has found an extra £17 million for the 2013-14 budget. If the 2012-13 budget was £546 million, as he claims, and the draft budget for 2013-14 is £512 million, does he accept that that is a £34 million cash-terms cut in a single year, which is far bigger than cuts elsewhere?
I think that I have laid out those figures to the best of my ability—[Interruption.]
Order.
As I said, I laid out those figures to the best of my ability. Answers were given to members by the First Minister today, and I am endeavouring to ensure that we understand the objectives that we have and how we are trying to pay for them. I say to Mr Brown that that is what I am trying to do.
The approach of seeking in-year revision to try to assist differentiates the Scottish National Party Government from its predecessors, which ran up huge underspends in a time of plenty. We are faced with a situation in which every penny of public money must be put to good use in times of dearth. We must retain our focus on the reform programme and the improvements that it will bring.
Can the cabinet secretary cast his mind back and point to a year during the period when Labour was in power when we had such a crisis in our colleges?
It is sometimes hard to remember, because there were so many crises under Labour. I point out that reform is essential. I would have thought, given the fondness of Labour for a reform agenda, that it might have seen that. However, let me carry on.
The first key measure that the college sector must look at is the volume of learning, not the headcount, important though that can be, because it varies from year to year for many reasons. Together with innovative, employer-facing provision delivered through Skills Development Scotland, we are maintaining the overall volume of learning, but of course the detail of delivery will change from place to place.
I know that that task has required huge effort from college staff and management. However, in a sector that has been largely unreformed for two decades, we have found the capacity to maintain the overall volume of learning, despite the budget reductions.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
No, I am sorry. I must make some progress.
The colleges have achieved what they have—and I pay tribute to them—because, as the Auditor General for Scotland’s report shows, they have a record level of reserves, which was over £200 million at the end of 2010-11. I have been gratified that so many of those who lead and govern the sector have understood and respected our decisions and have used their own resources to move forward, even though they may have disagreed with aspects of what was being proposed.
College sector reform—I repeat this—is therefore not only necessary, but possible. There is and there remains a compelling case for change. However, I accept that no Government, whatever its majority and its hue, can inspire sustainable change without dialogue with and the ability to work alongside those who lead, who govern, who teach and who study.
Regionalisation, which is at the very heart of our changes, is about improving the prospects for those who study, who teach and who lead, and it is driven most of all not by geography but by the need to deliver for all communities. I mentioned the volume of learning as the key measure of performance, but there is another key measure, and that is the quality and economic relevance of what is delivered.
Let me paint two quick scenarios. In the first scenario, colleges see the need to use their resources to deliver a high volume of short or part-time courses that respond to particular social, cultural or economic demands. In the second scenario, which is the relevant one during a recession, colleges decide that the priority for both the learner and the economy is to use the resource more intensively by offering a higher proportion of full-time courses to meet a strategic employment imperative. We have moved, in a number of years, from the first scenario to the second. Those who are preoccupied solely with headcount fail to understand that.
Of course colleges should be inclusive; they should work with those who are furthest from the labour market—and I have seen that clearly at John Wheatley College. Colleges should ensure that those with learning and other difficulties are assisted. I discussed that matter with the cross-party group on learning disability and I am keen to see the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council take it forward in outcome agreements.
There are other bodies and schemes that deliver training, and my colleague Angela Constance is deeply involved with those. There are ways in which we need to bring together those schemes with the third sector, private training providers, colleges and SDS. Above it all, and surrounding it all, is the opportunities for all initiative, through which we strive to ensure that every young person is offered a place in education or training if they are not in work. That is a unique offer that is being made by this Government.
I will touch briefly on two other issues. On mergers, I will approve no merger unless I am satisfied that the legitimate interests of all those affected—learners, employers, staff and the community—have been taken into account. The mergers that are being explored are the results of decisions by the governing body of each institution. They do produce significant benefits. According to the SFC, the savings will exceed £50 million by the academic year 2014-15. They bring overdue efficiency to a sector that retained its former configuration for too long. We have seen that at the City of Glasgow College and I am confident that we will see the same following the merger of the rural colleges and the creation of the new multi-campus Edinburgh college.
The Government has been challenged to reform our public services to meet the demands of the future. The independent budget review, which now guides the policy of the Labour Party, highlighted the number of colleges across Scotland and challenged us across the public sector to
“encourage progressive changes and joint action between public bodies to produce new and more effective service delivery models.”
That is precisely what we are doing.
I also want to touch on the reform and renewal of the college estate, because there has been a transformation. When we came into office in 2007, a number of redevelopments were under way. I am glad that they were undertaken by our predecessors, and we have carried on that good work. However, that good work, be it in Dundee, Fraserburgh, Thurso, Glasgow, Inverness or Kilmarnock, will also have an effect on how services are delivered.
I want to mention one more thing that we can do. In his review of college governance, Professor Russel Griggs asked us to establish a strategic forum in the sector. I am going to put that into practice. The initial membership of the forum will be the chairs and regional leads, and I will meet them shortly to listen to their views of how the Scottish Government should take forward the programme of reform—yes, in the light of the issues that have been raised in recent weeks. I hope, in time, to expand the forum, listening to those people and bringing in other views and voices. Indeed, if the Opposition spokespeople want to meet the forum at any stage for discussion, I will be happy to facilitate that once it is up and running.
Presiding Officer, I do not claim, and you know that I do not claim, to be a shrinking violet or a model of perfection. I am committed to getting the best for the students, young people, learners, staff and others in all the sectors for which I am responsible.
The joint amendment from Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems has some positive aspects. The proposers might have found me willing to accept it if it were it not for the political pejoratives within it.
I am passionate about education and about working with others who share the same passion. Education changes lives, transforms prospects, opens up opportunities and creates new worlds. Our college sector is achieving much, but it can achieve more. Change is challenging, but it is essential. In moving my motion, I say this to the other parties, to the Parliament, to the sector, to students and to Scotland: I want to ensure that we do the best by every learner. I ask everyone in the chamber and in the sector to be part of that. I will listen to them and work with them to achieve such progress. Let us not be distracted from that aim.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the key role that colleges and their staff play in supporting Scotland’s young people, communities and the economy; further recognises their substantial commitment to regionalisation, including the mergers in Edinburgh and Lothians and Scotland’s rural colleges; further recognises that college provision is being prioritised to better address economic needs and support young people at risk of unemployment; welcomes the commitment of the Scottish Government to maintaining both the volume of teaching and full-time equivalent student numbers, including through in-year additional budget support; further welcomes the continuing renewal of the college estate, demonstrated in new facilities delivered or planned at Stirling, Dundee, Alloa, Fraserburgh, Inverness, Kilmarnock and Glasgow, and supports the protection of the college student support budget in 2012-13.
14:45
It seems that barely a day goes by without there being apologies offered to the chamber or attempts made to surreptitiously amend the Official Report, so in that spirit I will start by offering an apology of my own. Looking back at the debate on colleges last week that was initiated by Liz Smith, I appear to have misled Parliament. That was inadvertent and what I said was certainly said in good faith. Nevertheless, when I suggested that Mike Russell
“is not a man who ever finds it easy to say, ‘I am wrong’”—[Official Report, 14 November 2012; c 13444.]
I may have created a false impression. The education secretary may still not find it easy to say sorry, but he is certainly getting what many would consider to be some long-overdue practice.
It is right that we are having this debate today but it is testimony to the mess that has been created by the Government and, in particular, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning in their handling of Scotland’s college sector. Most striking about this omnishambles is the extent to which it has been largely self-inflicted through an unwillingness to properly listen and an over-fondness to assert and lambast. In a remarkable show of chutzpah, Mr Russell chose this of all weeks to refer his colleague, the Minister for Transport and Veterans, to the ombudsman over the boorach that has been created over the Gourock to Dunoon ferry service. I dare say that Keith Brown is tempted to return the favour in relation to colleges.
No one disputes that there is complexity in college funding, not least given the differences between spending in academic and financial years. However, as the Education and Culture Committee has established, instead of making the situation better and clearer, Mr Russell has excelled at making it worse and more opaque. Not only has he been hung by his own petard, Mr Russell has managed to use it to string up the First Minister as well, nodding along happily all the while.
It is not as if offers of help were not made. During last week’s debate, Liz Smith rather helpfully intervened to suggest that there was confusion around college funding figures due to a lack of consistency in how the figures are measured. Did Mr Russell respond to that plea of mitigation on his behalf with grateful and humble thanks and a statement of his determination to make things better and clearer in the future? Not quite. He said:
“the figures are quite clear on where we are. Where we are is quite clear from the baseline figures, and the additional money that we have added in every single year is quite clear.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2012; c 13428.]
No doubt he is a further candidate for the Alex Salmond award for
“about as exact an answer as anybody has given in any Parliament”.—[Official Report, 15 November 2012; c 13513.]
What is quite clear is that there is a cut in college funding this year. Audit Scotland calculated it to be in the order of 24 per cent in real terms over the spending review period. In its briefing, Scotland’s Colleges pointed to a reduction in revenue funding of £113 million between 2010-11 and 2014-15. In terms of the teaching grant and fee waiver, it estimated the drop to be around £73 million by the end of the current financial year.
Against the backdrop of a 6 per cent real-terms cut in the Government’s overall budget, it is hard to square those figures from Audit Scotland and Scotland’s Colleges with the assertion from Mr Russell and Mr Salmond that colleges are a priority for the SNP. It is that fundamental contradiction that needs to be addressed. Doing so will require additional funding to be made available for specifically the teaching budget, which I will return to shortly.
Will the member give way?
I certainly will.
I am not going to apologise for anything. The member has just said that additional money is needed for teaching. I agree, but where will it come from?
I rather expected that question from the SNP back benches, but nevertheless it is clear that after the budget last year, £250 million-worth of announcements were made by the Government, so I think that the Government has the capacity to deliver the money.
He gives no answer.
Order.
Nevertheless, the results of the Government’s spending are choices that it has made. The risk of the shambles of the last few days and weeks is that it distracts Mr Russell and the Government from the task of addressing genuine concerns in Scotland’s college sector. In that context, I see the purpose of today’s debate as being to allow Parliament an opportunity to set out where it thinks that Government needs to rethink its approach and chart a different course. I am grateful to Hugh Henry and Liz Smith for their support in helping to make that happen.
However, this is not just about the money or changes in policy in various areas, important though those are; it is also about a change in attitude and style, as Mr Russell acknowledged in his earlier remarks. If that proves impossible for the current incumbent, we will need a change in education secretary as well.
There is no getting away from the fact that recent events have called into question the competence of the SNP Government and the judgment and approach of the education secretary himself. Nowhere is that more clearly illustrated than in Mr Russell’s ludicrously heavy-handed treatment of the former chair of Stow College. With growing evidence that that scandalous, intimidatory behaviour is symptomatic of the education secretary’s style, it is little wonder that some in the sector are now openly expressing a lack of confidence in his ability to respond positively to their needs.
As Graham Hay, chair of Angus College, stated at the weekend, Mr Russell acts in a “telling not listening style”. On the regionalisation process, Mr Hay added that there was
“no real engagement with the sector, he knew exactly what he wanted to do and was forcing the sector down that route. He certainly didn’t appreciate contrary opinions. For a government that keeps talking about independence, independent views are not warmly welcomed.”
I wonder whether he is one of the college principals who are so terrified by the cabinet secretary that they are afraid to speak out against the Government.
Given that he is the chair and not the principal, I suspect that his job is not on the line in quite the same way.
That is not a healthy relationship or one that demonstrates mutual respect, and given how critical our colleges are to helping Scotland to emerge strongly from the current economic difficulties, it is not a relationship that we can afford to leave as it is.
Despite those serious misgivings, I support a number of the initiatives for our colleges that the Scottish Government is pursuing, which the cabinet secretary has outlined. Indeed, they command the support of the whole chamber. As I have stated before, and as is reflected in my amendment, they include recognising the benefits that are achievable through closer working on a regional basis by colleges, universities, local authorities and employers. Such collaboration must, however, always be driven by educational need, and the pace at which it happens can be critical to its success.
With reduced budgets and an expectation among ministers that college reserves are to be raided to pay for mergers, it is not hard to see why concerns exist among people, from Audit Scotland to the chair of Angus College. Mr Russell is simply wrong to assert that those who question what he is doing or the way in which he is doing it are opposed to change and do not have the interests of colleges at heart. Although that is the narrative that he may wish to create, it is entirely false.
Mr Russell’s performance during the debate last week exemplified that. His motion—although perhaps not his remarks—today suggests that he has learned little over the past eight days. Last week, Mr Russell asserted his belief that colleges had been guilty of failing students, staff, employers, local communities and even Scotland itself. Prior to his arrival as education secretary, the college sector was—in his words—littered with
“duplication and ... inefficiency and waste”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2012; c 13427.]
That year zero view of the world and blasé denial of the significant contribution that our colleges have made over many decades is frankly ridiculous. It flies in the face of the facts and, indeed, the findings of the David Hume Institute report, which was published last month.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have got to make progress.
The authors of that report highlight the substantial value of the college sector to the Scottish economy, which is potentially up to £1.2 billion over the next eight years. Although they accept that colleges must adapt to meet new challenges and new opportunities, as Jeremy Peat has observed,
“change must not be at the cost of the crucial role the colleges play in providing opportunities to many from diverse parts of society; nor must the critical close relationships with local businesses be placed at risk.”
There is evidence, however, that the way in which the Government is pursuing its reform agenda and targeting spending in a sharply declining budget is having a disproportionate impact on some of the groups to which colleges have been particularly successful in extending access and opportunities. NUS Scotland makes the point that shifts in college participation away from part time to full time, from mature students to young students and from women to men have implications for participation and accessibility. As John Henderson of Scotland’s Colleges has said,
“One of the enormous strengths of the college system is its ability to cater for a diverse range of students at different times in their lives. Any narrowing of that risks limiting the opportunities available.”
Although the Government is right to reflect the specific challenges facing our young people—particularly with youth unemployment currently standing at around 100,000—it is wrong to downplay the importance of ensuring that colleges are able to continue to meet the needs of a wider group of learners.
The cabinet secretary and some of his back benchers have dismissed the reduction in course provision as simply the stripping away of “hobby” courses. That is palpably untrue and again betrays an unwillingness by Mr Russell to face up to the consequences of the decisions and choices that he and his Government have made. I suggest, for example, that the reduction by a quarter in the number of female students studying at colleges in Scotland since 2007 is a statistic that should have Mr Russell asking serious questions about the impact that his approach to college funding and reorganisation is having.
For those from less well-off backgrounds, there must also be concerns at what is happening with the reduced opportunities available. As Murdo Fraser reminded us last week, the proportion of those from the 20 per cent most deprived cohort has fallen from 83.3 per 1,000 in 2007-08 to 72.5 per 1,000 in 2010-11. Again, I see no useful purpose served by the cabinet secretary dismissing that alarming trend, not least given the commitment to extending access that is shared across the Parliament.
For the sake of the choice and quality of the provision on offer to students, the opportunities available to the wide range of individuals that colleges have been so good at supporting, the connections that local businesses have with colleges in their area and the morale of staff who work in this critical sector—for all those reasons—I believe that the education secretary must look again at the approach that he is taking to funding, to reform and to the relationship that he has with those in the sector. If that does not happen as a matter of urgency, confidence in the SNP Government and in this education secretary will continue to erode, potentially to the point of no return.
I have pleasure in moving amendment S4M-04914.1, to leave out from “their substantial commitment” to end and insert:
“that colleges are vital in providing educational opportunities for individuals from a wide range of backgrounds and circumstances; is concerned that the Scottish Government’s planned cut to college budgets in 2013-14 puts at risk efforts both to widen access and to ensure the quality of course provision; believes that, while regionalisation has the potential to increase collaboration and deliver benefits for colleges, students and employers, these outcomes will only be achieved if restructuring is driven by educational need and at an appropriate pace; further believes that confidence in the Scottish Government, not least within the sector, has been shaken by the failure of ministers to demonstrate a grasp of the allocated budget and their heavy-handed treatment of college staff and governors, and believes that confidence can only be restored if the Scottish Government takes urgent steps to change its approach to the sector, including giving an urgent indication that it will revise its 2013-14 draft budget to prevent a cut to college funding and agree that it will set out clearly the costs and benefits of reform to the college sector as recommended by Audit Scotland.”
14:56
I see that, as for the football team during a run of bad results, the chairman has turned up to give the dreaded vote of confidence to the manager. Surely it is only a matter of time before the cabinet secretary goes on gardening leave.
For a multitude of reasons we are back debating Scotland’s colleges just a week after our last attempt. Yes, of course there is the small issue of fabricated figures, spin and the political dark arts—or, as Mr Russell’s fellow right-winger Alan Clark once famously said, being “economical with the actualité”—but I suggest that we are here for the more important reason that, across the Opposition parties, there is a concern for the college sector and the disaster that is unfolding in front of us. That disaster is being driven by the cabinet secretary and will get worse if it is allowed to proceed unchecked.
Even on the Government benches, there must be some who, deep down in quiet times of reflection, know that the policy agenda being pursued by their Government is wrong and is having a detrimental impact on their constituents. I live in hope that someone somewhere on the Government benches will find the backbone to speak up for their area.
Let me, as always, be charitable to the cabinet secretary—
Will the member give way?
No, sit down.
I will stand up for my constituents, if the member will let me.
Mr Stevenson, the member is not giving way.
Presiding Officer, it is good to get them animated so early.
I can see how some people could get confused with the college figures. The system is opaque and complex: money cut here; money transferred there; and money that used to go to the funding council given to SDS, only for the colleges to bid back into SDS for the same money that they once got directly. We have had in-year revisions and, at one stage, we had week-to-week revisions. That accountancy sleight of hand is not based, as the cabinet secretary has claimed, on his standing up for colleges and securing more funding; it is a blatant attempt to try to camouflage the reality of what is going on by creating a funding shambles that is difficult to follow or scrutinise effectively.
In an earlier intervention, Mr Findlay asked whether there was a crisis when Labour ran the college sector. I quote from an EIS response to a Scottish Executive consultation on changes to FE college boards of management:
“The Executive will be familiar with the many critical situations which have developed during the past few years where two colleges have required direct intervention and many more have received specific cash injections to keep afloat.”
Does Mr Findlay believe that that might have constituted a crisis on Labour’s watch?
Mr McDonald, if we want to trade quotes from the EIS, just wait a minute, please.
The funding shambles was confirmed by Professors Peat and Gallacher and former college chair Mr Buchanan when they appeared before the Education and Culture Committee. On that occasion, each was asked to give a figure for what their college budget was being cut by this year. Professor Peat said:
“I will kick off by saying that I cannot, at this stage, give you a figure for what that cut is in absolute terms.”
Professor Gallacher said:
“I agree with Professor Peat. There are many complex issues involved. However, there is no doubt that, over the past number of years, the college sector has experienced a significant cut in its budget, which has undoubtedly had major implications for trying to maintain both the range and the quality of provision.”
Paul Buchanan said:
“Likewise, I am unable to give a figure, but there is definitely a downward trend, which appears to continue into next year as well.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 25 September 2012; c 1445.]
The problem is that, instead of listening, the cabinet secretary dismisses anyone and everyone who just happens to see the world a little bit differently from him.
Audit Scotland has made it clear that there will be a 24 per cent cut between 2011-12 and 2014-15; the University and College Union says that there is a £34 million cut; and Scotland’s Colleges says that there are huge waiting lists. The Scottish Parliament information centre has said:
“Over the spending review period as a whole for 2012-13 to 2014-15, even without taking revisions into account, there is a clear reduction in further education funding.”
Common Knowledge, or CKUK, identifies a 34 per cent cut in part-time places for students with learning disabilities. It tells me that no more outreach work is done at Reid Kerr College with that client group and that courses have been cut by 50 per cent. Clydebank College’s courses for adults with learning disabilities have been cut from 16 to 5, and there have been cuts in outreach at Cardonald College.
I ask members to listen to two personal stories. Lesley, who is aged 25, is a young woman with learning difficulties. She applied for a cookery course—not a hobby course—in a Glasgow college, but she was refused a place because she was too old—25 years old and written off. Mark, aged 24, after two years at college, was ready to go on to his third year, but he was telephoned during the summer to be told that the course had been cut and that he would not be returning to college after the holidays. What has Mr Russell to say to Lesley and Mark?
None of that is my evidence—it comes from people who work in the sector and understand what is going on. I believe that the four college trade unions at Angus College and Dundee College reflect the real views of the college sector when they say:
“Continually we are told that the cuts in FE funding are as a result of restraints from Westminster—not true.”
You need to bring your remarks to a close, Mr Findlay.
I am coming to the end.
“These are happening through choices made by the current Scottish Government and have a direct impact on the life chances of the Scottish population. We have no confidence with the current Education Secretary in his dealings with the FE sector.”
I could not have put that better myself. Staff and students in Scotland’s colleges have lost confidence in the cabinet secretary and, more important, his policy. It is time for him to go.
15:02
The fact that we are back in the chamber discussing the Scottish Government’s handling of its college policies says it all. How ironic it is that a debate that was supposed to be about the important issue of improving career guidance services in Scotland has turned into a debate about the career guidance for one cabinet secretary.
What happened last week was a turning point, when competence disappeared from the SNP government at its highest level. However, it is the credibility question that is most troubling and, as many people in the sector have commented, it is a wholly unwelcome diversion from many of the real issues in the college sector. The debate should be about education and jobs, and I will come on to those in a minute.
Let me be clear that our ability to scrutinise the true situation that exists for colleges and, indeed, the ability of the witnesses who attended the Education and Culture committee, has been seriously undermined by the lack of accurate data. Mike Russell’s problem is that he has lost the confidence of the sector, the public at large and politicians across the chamber. That situation is not good for Scottish education.
Notwithstanding the fact that the academic year does not match the financial year—that is not the fault of any Government or even the cabinet secretary—new interpretations of the budget figures seem to emerge every time the Scottish Government makes an attempt to clarify them. The public sees a First Minister and an education secretary who cannot make up their minds about whether college budgets are going up or down. It is bad enough that they both misled the Parliament with dodgy figures, but they did not even seem to know what the right ones were. Mike Russell was nodding when the first Minister produced the wrong figures at First Minister’s questions; he was again seen nodding vigorously when he thought that his boss had set a wrong right in the 5 pm statement. But were those figures the whole truth?
If the First Minister is correct in amending the baseline figure to £556 million for the financial year 2011-12, instead of the £545 million figure quoted in the Audit Scotland report, does that not mean that the college budgets have actually suffered a cut of more than 24 per cent? Likewise, as a result of the mess created by the Scottish Government with recent figures, there is a danger of fixing too much attention on the budget year 2012-13 and losing sight of what will happen in budget year 2013-14, when it now seems likely that there will be an even greater cut than was previously stated. What does that say about the long-term planning for colleges in their courses, staff and student numbers?
How does that affect education and jobs? I repeat what I asked in last week’s colleges debate. Why, when youth unemployment is growing and we have a flagship policy that promises an education or training opportunity for all 16 to 19-year-olds, does the SNP Government still believe that it is right to cut the budgets of further education colleges, which are essential for training young people in the skills that will be needed when the Scottish economy returns to sustainable economic growth? As we have already agreed, colleges could hardly be more important in that respect, nor in reaching out to the many people for whom further education was previously too remote. Last week, all parties in the Parliament, including the Scottish Government, praised colleges for the diversity and flexibility of their work and their potential to widen access.
Worse still, as a result of the Scottish Government’s changed policy focus to provide greater student support, there is now less money available for bursaries, which, as everyone knows, are provided specifically to help students who come from poorer sections of society. When the Scottish Government talks to other parties about Conservative policies, it should be mighty careful about seeking the moral high ground. Student support is a vital element of any college budget, but so too are bursaries. The Government should remember that student support will be of little use if students cannot find places in the first instance.
The Scottish Government says that further education must change. I do not think that anyone disagrees. It is clear that it wants to move away from a system where institutions matter more than people, towards one that is built around the needs of a wide range of students and much greater flexibility. Those reforms are the basis for regionalisation. They bring enhanced educational opportunities and much greater responsiveness to local demand. That should be the driver for college reform; it should not always be about money.
I have previously complimented the Scottish Government on several of its early years policies, which can make a crucial difference at the most important stage in the educational journey. Completely the opposite is true of its policies on the tertiary education sector, where the focus is entirely wrong.
The Scottish Conservatives cannot support a policy that is ripping the heart out of institutions that have done much in recent years to make further education more accessible and more flexible, and that aspire to higher standards. That is why we fully support the amendment lodged by Liam McArthur, call for a major rethink of the Scottish Government’s priorities within the education budget and demand that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning resign.
We move to the open debate. I say to members that time is really tight.
15:08
I declare an interest in the debate, as I have a 19-year-old daughter who is attending a college course in social care, one of the subjects that is no longer available, according to the Tories. She will be quite shocked by that.
Mr Findlay was as confused as ever. He said in his speech that we should talk about our areas. I am happy to talk about my area, my record and the SNP’s record.
The purpose of the reforms is to strengthen the college sector when massive cuts are being inflicted on Scotland by the Westminster mix of Tories and Lib Dems. That is the important point that we must think about. Westminster is making cuts like we have never seen before.
During the past weekend—the cabinet secretary repeated it again today—the EIS general secretary, Larry Flanagan, stated that political parties should get back to the issues, rather than having arguments
“based around personal spats and party-political squabbling.”
All of us—certain people in particular—should learn that lesson and focus on the young people who are involved.
Larry Flanagan is right. We should get back to the facts. Would he not support getting to the truth of the figures?
With the greatest respect, Mr Henry and I have known each other for some time and, if we start talking about the truth, we could get on to difficult ground. Let us get back to the issues and ensure that we move the further education system forward, rather than try to score petty political points.
The fact is that we live in challenging times. Cuts have been made to the Scottish budget that have never been seen in the Parliament’s lifetime. The cuts take us back to another time, when the party that is governing at Westminster governed Scotland without a mandate—I refer, of course, to Mrs Thatcher’s time. Some things never change; the Tories’ attitude to Scotland certainly does not.
The reality of the situation is that the Scottish Government is maintaining college student support at record levels; it is protecting student numbers in further education; and it is maintaining full-time-equivalent teaching activity. The allocation of a further £17 million to colleges for 2013-14 will support students and protect numbers.
The reforms will strengthen the sector. At this time, it is necessary to have a renewed focus on offering high-quality courses that are in line with what employers want and need. That came across particularly strongly when people from the private sector spoke to the Education and Culture Committee. We all know that education in all its forms is invaluable, but that must be the aim. Otherwise, we will let down our young people and not provide them with the skills that they need to have long-term careers and a high quality of life.
From the member’s experience, does he think that the education secretary has the absolute confidence of colleges across Scotland?
In my experience, I would say that he does, because I have yet to meet anyone who is whimpering in fear of the education secretary. Unless I am to be accused of bullying, I would say that he has the colleges’ full confidence.
The regionalisation of the sector makes sense. It will produce the high-quality courses that we need. That must be the primary aim, but there are other benefits: duplication will be reduced and merged colleges will be able to concentrate more on strengthening the courses that they offer and tackling drop-out rates. Duplication within relatively local areas will be removed. Each region will be able to offer the best courses that are available, reflecting local need. Support for regionalisation is widespread in the college sector. In a recent meeting, Audrey Cumberford of Reid Kerr College suggested to me that regionalisation was the only way to go and that it was the way forward for her college.
The facts speak for themselves. In the coming financial year, further investment will be available to support our students and to protect those who attend colleges. That record is impressive when it is compared with that of the previous Administration, which in its two terms provided 39 per cent less in cash terms. The Westminster Tories and their friends are to cut investment in further education by £1.1 billion.
It is important that we protect student numbers in FE. In 2013-14, there will be provision for more than 116,000 FTE students—the same number as in 2011-12 and 2012-13. We must look strategically at how the regions are organised and at the employment requirements of each region. That is why a £40 million fund from the Scottish funding council and the new employability fund will enable Skills Development Scotland to do work in the regions to look at the opportunities that exist for training and employment and to match them with the skills that are in demand in local areas. That is an important focus.
The recent Audit Scotland report on Scotland’s colleges found that college reserves totalled £206 million at the end of 2011, which was double the 2006-07 figure of £98.9 million. Mike Russell told the Education and Culture Committee:
“the state of college reserves is very high indeed, so we expect colleges to contribute to the merger process, which they are doing.”
The member needs to wind up.
He went on to say:
“The Edinburgh merger resulted, I think, in 40 per cent of the costs being met from the reserves of the colleges involved.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 23 October 2012; c 1564.]
Moving towards a more regional approach will make the college sector more efficient and responsive to the needs of students and local economies. Such reform offers the best way forward for our students. It will produce high-quality courses that are targeted at providing the fulfilling career paths that employers require and which reflect the regions’ requirements—
I regret that I must stop you there, Mr Adam.
15:14
I start by saying, as Labour members did last week, that I truly value the positive role that our colleges play in improving opportunities for young people, for lifelong learners, for women and for people with learning disabilities. We should be positive about that role, about the role that dedicated staff play in doing their work and about the students who study at our colleges and who go on to play a vital role in our communities and in the economy.
It is therefore vital that we stand up for our colleges and highlight the effects that the SNP Government’s cuts and policies are having on staff and students. However, it would be remiss of me not to say that it is extremely difficult to have a constructive debate about the future of our colleges when the Government gives the Parliament misleading information. It is abundantly clear that, in relation to statements about this year’s college budgets, Mike Russell has either been grossly incompetent or knowingly misled the Parliament. It is one or the other—either way, neither is good enough.
It is inconceivable that Mike Russell did not know that college budgets were being reduced in June. It is still unclear to me—although I asked about it on Tuesday—why he nodded last week as the First Minister gave the wrong figures. It is also unclear why Mr Russell took five months to apologise, when the issue was first raised by me in a point of order that was made on 28 June, immediately after he had responded to another point of order. It is a challenge to have the debate in those circumstances.
I am not content to accept the cabinet secretary’s admission as a one-off because I am not yet convinced that he is ready to face up to the facts. Like him, I use Twitter, and I recently saw that he had engaged with the EIS Edinburgh College branch on female student numbers. On 8 November, the EIS representative challenged him on the 43,000 drop in the number of female students in our colleges, as reported by The Herald. On 9 November, he tweeted a reply in which he claimed, “figures simply not true.”
I have received figures from the Scottish funding council, via SPICe, which show that the female head count in non-advanced FE courses was 161,559 in 2006-07 and 118,447 in 2010-11, which is a drop of 43,112. Will the cabinet secretary repeat his claim on Twitter that those figures are “simply not true”? I am happy to give way.
I also said in reply to the tweet that, if the college emailed me, I would give it a fuller account. I am still happy to do so.
I made the point in last week’s debate and I have said several times—possibly even in committee—that there is a difference between full-time equivalent numbers and head count. We cannot simply go by head count—we must deal with full-time equivalents. I am happy to explain that again, and I will do so.
I am perfectly aware of the difference between full-time equivalent and head-count numbers. However, the fact is that the cabinet secretary said “figures simply not true.” He now says that he will look into the matter. Even if he could prove that the figures were untrue, the sort of dismissive attitude that saying “figures simply not true” shows to concerns that are raised results in people losing confidence in him.
It is obvious to everyone apart from the Government the extent to which people who want to study at college are being hit by the Government’s policies and cuts. The staff at our colleges are also paying the price for the cuts.
Last week, SNP members such as Mark McDonald claimed that staff morale is improving. To be honest, I am more inclined to take my advice from college staff and trade unions that are working on the ground. Emma Phillips of Unison, who gave evidence to the Education and Culture Committee on staff morale, said that the union had collected quotes from speaking to staff, such as:
“This is the worst I’ve felt in 11 years”,
“Services are stretched to breaking point and morale is at an all-time low”
and
“We do not know where the axe will fall next.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 25 September 2012; c 1481.]
That is the human face of Mike Russell’s policies. No wonder Scottish union reps at Dundee College, Angus College and Jewel and Esk College say that they have no confidence left in him. A massive number of jobs have been lost and, with the SNP Government’s cuts, we are likely to have many more.
Last week, I made it clear that college cuts are disproportionately affecting people with learning disabilities. I do not intend to repeat all the points that I made, but it is shocking that, according to the Scottish Consortium for Learning Disability, an average 34 per cent cut has been made in part-time college courses for people with learning disabilities. That is a scandal and the Government needs to provide the funding to reverse those cuts.
The SNP Government needs to start listening. The SNP likes to ridicule on occasions when Labour and the Conservatives agree, with chants of “better together”. It speaks absolute volumes for the SNP’s education policies when the Tories think that the SNP’s cuts to colleges are too deep. Who needs Michael Gove when we have Michael Russell?
Mike Russell has admitted that he misled the Parliament on college funding figures. He has also finally admitted that waiting list issues need clarity. Labour members have called for that for some time, and I am pleased that he has finally come round to our way of thinking.
It is clear that staff and students in Scotland’s colleges have lost confidence in him and that he is damaging our college education system. It is time for Mike Russell to go.
Time is extremely tight, so speeches should be up to six minutes; shorter speeches would be welcome. That includes interventions.
15:20
I want to concentrate on the importance of colleges in preparing young people for jobs and meeting the needs of employers. There are areas of agreement on that. Page 3 of the briefing for the debate from Scotland’s Colleges says:
“Scotland’s Colleges welcome the move to regionalisation as set out in ‘Putting Learners at the Centre’ and are committed to working with the Scottish Government to ensure it is delivered successfully.”
In the current financial climate, I think that most learners have the same purpose in mind: to equip themselves for the world of work. For that to happen, colleges must provide courses that lead to jobs, and they can do that only if they look at market demand and listen to employers. So let us listen to what employers are saying.
One of the most revealing pieces of evidence that was given to the Education and Culture Committee was in the written submission from the Federation of Small Businesses. The FSB, which has 20,000 members in Scotland, reported that, in the past, only 10 per cent of its members were contacted by a college over the space of a year. Almost half of that 10 per cent found the interaction helpful, but let us not kid ourselves: that level of interaction is just not good enough.
In her subsequent oral evidence to the Education and Culture Committee, Mary Goodman of the Federation of Small Businesses said that she hoped that college reform would address that problem. She said:
“colleges have the potential to meet the needs of local businesses far better than they currently do. There is a lot of good practice out there, but it could be far more widespread.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 2 October 2012; c 1500.]
The member has been quoting. I would like to quote Liz McIntyre of Borders College. Just last month, she said:
“The current level of cuts for next year is ... going to have an impact on colleges ... student places and ... jobs”.
Will the member comment on that?
Ms McIntyre gave evidence to the Education and Culture Committee this year, as she did last year. Obviously, she is entitled to her view. Her robust comments show that college heads are not the intimidated creatures that some Opposition politicians have tried to suggest they are.
I want to talk about employers, as it is important that colleges listen to them. The committee had a session with employers, including the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. Amy Dalrymple of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce said:
“The issue is not about funding and co-investment as much as it is about rethinking and changing attitudes around business involvement and engagement.”
In the same session, James Alexander from the Scottish Council for Development and Industry said that the Scottish Government’s regionalisation programme could help to solve that fundamental problem. He said:
“It is ... important for colleges to spend more time engaging further with businesses, particularly local businesses. That might be more likely as a result of regionalisation, as a big regional college might be more able to engage with a broader range of businesses to ensure that the courses that it offers and the skills that it delivers meet the needs of employers in its area so that people going through the college system can get the skills that employers can immediately put to use.”—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 2 October 2012; c 1510, 1501.]
That is what it is all about. If colleges do not talk to business, they will not be able to provide the courses that employers need, and that means letting down their students. We saw that in the past before the current reforms. Some—although not all—competing colleges, which were often geographically close to each other, duplicated popular courses. That meant that the market could not absorb the students once they were qualified, and there were no jobs at the end of their courses.
Whatever happened to the concept of lifelong learning? Is it not the case that some students who go to college will never work because of circumstances? Some organisations that work with disabled people have told me that. What are we saying for those young people whose places are being cut?
I know quite a lot about learning disability, because I have a learning disabled sister, and I have constantly asked the cabinet secretary about the subject, both in the committee and through the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on learning disability. If the member had attended the cross-party group, he would have heard charities for learning disabled students say that a lot of college provision for such students was not fit for purpose because students were sent to repeat courses over and over again.
The issue of learning disability is important because it is individual colleges that make the decisions on that. As a result of representations by the cross-party group to the cabinet secretary, he has said that he will ensure that learning disabled students—indeed, all disabled students—are considered in the colleges’ outcome agreements. That is a positive approach. Neil Findlay cannot just keep repeating accusations all the time. I was at the committee when the issue was discussed there and at the cross-party group when it was discussed there, but he was not.
I was making a point about employment. At a time of high youth unemployment, and given that our money from London has been cut by £1.3 billion this year, it is right that we focus on courses for young unemployed people. That is what our opportunities for all commitment for 16 to 19-year-olds is about. That also applies to what we are doing for young people outwith colleges. The number of modern apprenticeships has doubled since the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration, despite the fact that we have a great deal less money. The people on those modern apprenticeships are trained both in colleges and outwith them.
Everybody knows that there are financial pressures because of the cut from London. The regionalisation programme is a way of reforming colleges so that they deliver for our young people despite that cut.
15:26
We were challenged to have the backbone to speak up for our area. Not for the first time, I have been talking to the principal of the North Highland College of the University of the Highlands and Islands and others who are connected with the college. The principal told me a number of things that add to the debate. He said:
“my College Board, and our staff are too focussed on providing our students with as high a quality education as we can”.
He continued:
“for what it’s worth, I think Mike Russell has done a very good job in the changes he has initiated in the Highlands and Islands FE region, and while some people may not agree or understand all the detail of the changes, I believe the intervention of the Cabinet Secretary has moved us along a trajectory that I believe will bring benefit both to the Colleges and to the University of the Highlands and Islands.”
That is a local example of a college that is getting on with the job. That example affects Thurso, Wick, Dornoch and Alness in my constituency.
Will Mr Gibson take an intervention?
Not at the moment. I will come to the member in a second.
The remark in the amendment about the ministers’
“heavy-handed treatment of college staff and governors”
is shameful. Here we have a college principal and his staff saying that they are getting on with the job.
Will Mr Gibson give way on that point?
Not at the moment. Let me finish this point.
Liam McArthur, as a member of the Highlands and Islands family, ought to recognise the way forward for that region. He should withdraw those remarks, which are in such bald terms, because they are not true. It will be interesting to see whether he withdraws them.
Will the member give way?
I am not speaking about Mr Rennie; I am talking about Mr McArthur.
Will the member give way?
Order.
Liz Smith talked about a loss of confidence. There is no loss of confidence whatsoever in North Highland College, so her generalised remarks do not reflect the truth and she should withdraw them.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
On that point?
No, thank you.
Mr Gibson does not appear to be giving way.
There has been investment in the college in a fashion that has allowed the development of the engineering, technology and energy centre, which the First Minister opened in the autumn and which Mr Russell recently visited. The centre, which cost about £8.8 million to set up, will deliver courses that will allow people to take part in the industries that will provide work in future. I welcome the fact that the Government has been able to partly fund that. It is one of the things to which the cabinet secretary referred in his speech.
Let me return to the member’s earlier remarks. He will have met many principals and chairs across Scotland who are outraged by the cabinet secretary’s behaviour. It is unworthy of him to dismiss their remarks as irrelevant.
I expect nothing more from people who do not have the facts about what is going on out there—[Interruption.] The Opposition does not want to accept that. With respect to sufferers of seasonal affective disorder, I think that the Opposition is suffering from a unionist political version of seasonal affective disorder and does not want its murky view to be dispelled by evidence of actual life in colleges and progress round the country.
I am just one person speaking about my local college. It is important to recognise some of the people who are being taught in the college. This year, 2,018 people have enrolled part time and 368 have enrolled full time on national certificate courses. Part-time students are being taken on in considerable numbers. Of the people who have come in, 23 per cent are in care subjects, 17 per cent are in engineering, 16 per cent are in business, 14 per cent are in land use and 10 per cent are in hospitality. People are learning a wide range of skills in the college that serves my area.
I would like to hear such news from other members, because around our country there are many people working in colleges who are not so-called spokespeople but are students and staff, who are getting on with the job.
“We have got to stop all the ... moaners from stealing the whole show. There are very good things happening in Colleges in Scotland and the public deserve to be told about this as well.”
That is what Gordon Jenkins, the principal of North Highland College UHI in Thurso, said yesterday in an email to me.
15:32
This could be considered a timely debate, given the events of the past few weeks, but its importance owes more to its subject matter than it does to its relationship with the travails of the cabinet secretary, so I will devote most of my speech to the subject matter.
However, first, I remind members that, in a members’ business debate in June, I talked about the effect of the Scottish Government’s cuts on my local college and on one of its departments in particular. In his response to the debate, the Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages, Dr Allan, acknowledged the cuts to North Glasgow College and to the budgets of colleges across Scotland, and I give him credit for his honesty.
The very next day, however, in his now-infamous answer to Mr Malik, the cabinet secretary denied that there were cuts. I am sure that, on reflection, Mr Russell regrets not listening to the point of order that Neil Bibby made on 28 June, because if he had listened to Mr Bibby pointing out the discrepancy between his utterances and those of Dr Allan he would surely have checked the figures and apologised to the Parliament there and then. History shows that the cabinet secretary took another course of action.
For Mr Russell’s benefit, let me tell him about the consequence of his cuts to North Glasgow College. Last year, the college experienced a cut of £1 million. This year, it faces a further reduction of £823,000. The college sought to make voluntary severance arrangements with its staff and, as a result, lost 31 jobs in 2011-12 and a further 16 in the current year. As I said in June, the cutting of 31 jobs last year equates to the loss of some 500 years’ experience and a great deal of on-going anxiety for staff. The cut has also resulted in places being reduced on courses as diverse as communications and support for learning.
This year, places have been lost in plumbing, tourism and music and sound production, among other subjects. I have witnessed at first hand my local college’s efforts to minimise the effect of these cuts on the young people it serves, the staff it employs and the range of courses and number of places available, but it cannot continue to absorb cuts of this magnitude.
The situation is no better elsewhere. In 2011-12, Glasgow’s colleges lost 39,258 weighted student units of measurement—or the equivalent of a John Wheatley or Stow College being entirely lost to us. Of course, we also know that this loss in numbers has disproportionately affected women, with the number of women in Scotland’s colleges dropping by 24 per cent since this Government came into office. By comparison, the drop in the number of men studying is 13 per cent. Of course, that is still too much but, as I have said, a disproportionate number of women have been affected.
That has happened not by accident but because of the Government’s deliberate policy to favour full-time courses over part-time ones. It seems obvious to me that part-time courses will be more attractive to many women, particularly those with childcare or other caring responsibilities who need flexibility to be able to balance their working, educational and caring responsibilities. I find it hard to understand how the Scottish Government can be so blinkered in its approach, particularly when women’s employment opportunities have been hit so badly by the economic situation. For many women, the chance to upskill or train for employment can be considered only when part-time training is available.
Last week, I heard references being made to “hobby” courses in what seemed a deliberate attempt to downgrade the loss of part-time courses. Surely the cabinet secretary understands that, just because a course is part time, that does not mean that it is not worth while and that even the courses that do not lead directly to a qualification are often the first step back into employment and training for many women, particularly those who are in, as the jargon has it, “hard-to-reach” categories but who I prefer to think of as the people who most need our help.
This Government and this cabinet secretary have lost all credibility on the issue of further education. The cabinet secretary might have apologised to the Parliament for misrepresenting the figures, but he has yet to apologise to the thousands of students who have struggled to find a place, to those dedicated members of teaching staff who face an uncertain future and to the communities of this country who, day by day, see their local colleges being diminished by his policies and actions.
It is clear that staff and students in Scotland’s colleges no longer have confidence in Mr Russell and that his existence in this post is damaging college education. I take no pleasure whatever in saying that I believe that he needs to consider his position and resign.
15:38
In his speech just a few moments ago, Liam McArthur accused the cabinet secretary of lodging with the ombudsman a complaint against his own Government about the Dunoon ferry service. I and a number of members from the Highlands and Islands region were copied into the same email from the Dunoon ferry campaigners that Mr Russell received, and Mr Russell copied me into his reply. I can therefore confirm to the chamber that what Mr McArthur said was entirely inaccurate and, indeed, untrue. I ask the member to accept my word for this if he will not accept the cabinet secretary’s but, if he is not prepared to do that, I am sure that Mr Russell and I will be happy to co-operate in carrying out the minimum amount of research that would be required to get to the truth. I ask Mr McArthur to take a bit of time and, when he discovers the truth, to come back to the chamber at the earliest opportunity and make due apology to Mr Russell and the chamber.
Will the member give way?
No, I am not prepared to take an intervention. This debate should not be about the cabinet secretary or who said what when—[Interruption.]
Mr MacKenzie is not taking interventions at the moment.
I invite the member to speak to me after the debate, which is—or should be—about further education. [Interruption.]
Order.
Last week I paid tribute to the cabinet secretary because he was on the verge of pulling off that difficult task of making a virtue out of necessity. This week, I renew that tribute. The further education system has been in need of reform for many years. Hugh Henry admitted as much in last week’s debate and he agreed that reform was necessary—reform that Labour failed to carry out when it was in office, when its budget was rising year on year, and which Hugh Henry failed to carry out when he was education minister, albeit briefly.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I took a number of interventions last week and did not even get halfway through my speech.
The need for reform was evident in that daft system in which colleges sometimes operated in competition with each other like pseudo-businesses—some colleges did well and others did not, and two colleges that were close together would sometimes struggle in competition with each other, running identical courses, each with half-full classes. We heard a lot about that last week and we heard about needless and wasteful duplication.
We should remember, too, that further education is not really about colleges. It is not even about the further education sector. It is about young people and it is about training and educating and equipping them for life. The system was failing many of those young people because it was not always—
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I have to make progress.
The system was not always about supplying education that was relevant to the needs of those young people for today and tomorrow. How do we know that? We know that because in an era of rising unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, we hear from industry sectors of skill shortages. We hear that they are desperate for young people but that they cannot get sufficient numbers who are adequately trained or educated. We hear that from the oil and gas sector.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you. With estimates of 22 billion barrels of oil still to come out of the North Sea, with a value of more than £1.5 trillion, the sector offers not just short-term employment but rewarding long-term careers.
Will the member give way now?
No, I will not, thank you. We hear about skill shortages from the renewable energy sector. With some estimates suggesting that there will be investment of more than £100 billion in the sector in Scotland in the next decade, the sector offers great career opportunities for young people.
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member give way now?
No, thank you. No, thank you.
There is a need to reform and to refocus our further education sector and to address those pressing problems, because it is fundamentally wrong to deny our young people—
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
It is fundamentally wrong to deny our young people the opportunity of meaningful careers. It is also wrong because it deprives us of the ability to fully realise our economic opportunities.
Will the member take an intervention?
The member is in his last minute.
The buildings in our further education estate are not all capable of accommodating the necessary reforms, so large amounts of capital investment are required to facilitate the reforms. The Scottish Government has provided that investment partially through the non-profit-distributing mechanism. That is why, in this period of reform, it is misleading and entirely false to consider only revenue spending.
There is one further matter that I must touch on before concluding. Colleges have reserves of around £206 million—or they did at the end of 2011. That is equivalent to about 40 per cent of this year’s revenue budget.
Draw to a close now, please.
Under those circumstances, it is only proper that colleges contribute to the costs of the reforms, which, by and large, they support.
The cabinet secretary has been carrying out the reforms—
You must close now, please.
He has been carrying them out under difficult circumstances.
15:44
I am happy to be given the opportunity to speak positively about what the Government is doing to protect our further education in the face of Westminster Government cuts.
Let us consider some of the positive indicators. The SNP Government has increased baseline college student support by 25 per cent since 2006-07, a rise of £20.5 million from £63.7 million to £84.2 million in 2011-12. The Government is clearly committed and determined to maintain support to further education students, and its actions over the past six years certainly evidence that.
In the 2013-14 budget, an additional £11.4 million has been allocated to the student support budget to maintain support at more than £95 million. That is 40 per cent more than during the previous two Administrations. The 2013-14 budget also includes a commitment of an additional £17 million for student support and college places. Of that £17 million, £11 million will be devoted to student support and the remaining £6 million will be for college places.
This Administration is protecting student numbers for further education. The Scottish Government will put in place provision for more than 116,000 full-time equivalent students in 2013-14, again maintaining the same numbers as in 2011-12 and 2012-13.
Mr Beattie is a thoughtful and intelligent member of the Public Audit Committee. As Audit Scotland presented its report to him and the rest of the committee, he knows that college funding has been cut by 24 per cent. Does he want to comment on that figure?
I do not think that anybody is denying that there is an overall budget pressure on further education; in the points that I am making, I am trying to draw out the positive aspects in which the Government is taking specific action to protect students.
This year, the Scottish Government has taken major action to reform and improve Scottish colleges. The Government is committed to improving the structure, funding and training opportunities that colleges provide. Our colleges play a vital role in building up people’s aspirations for the future by providing them with crucial life and work skills, and they contribute hugely towards Scotland’s performance in education and, importantly, the economy.
To maintain and build on the colleges’ importance, the Scottish Government has set about the structural regionalisation of colleges. Regionalisation within defined regions across Scotland is the best way to achieve improvements in college funding and the quality of our colleges, the provision of high standards of education and training opportunities, and improvements in colleges’ accountability.
One of the first examples of a successful merger is that of the newly formed Edinburgh College. I would like to take a moment to praise the previous Jewel and Esk College, which existed in my constituency since 2008 and is now a member of Edinburgh College. I have been very impressed with the efforts and teaching at Jewel and Esk, and I look forward to its continued development as part of the merged college.
Has the member spoken recently to the college unions at Jewel and Esk to find out their views on the Government’s handling of FE?
I have not spoken to the college unions, but I can quote Jim Ewing, chair of the Edinburgh merger partnership board. He said in The Scotsman:
“Working together as one college will provide more opportunities for students, staff and the community, and reflects the growing desire of the Scottish Government for colleges to work together to deliver a smarter, more economical model going forward.”
The three combined colleges all agreed that a merger would create more opportunities for Edinburgh and the Lothians by delivering efficient services to students and opportunities for the new college as an employer across the region. Edinburgh College will develop a broader and deeper curriculum to better support individuals, communities and businesses.
The proposals and guiding principles that the Scottish Government has put forward for post-16 education reform have been strongly supported by the three individual colleges and are now supported by Edinburgh College and its stakeholders. Those who are truly involved in the reforms have confidence in the Government, regardless of doomsayers.
Will the member take an intervention?
I think that I have taken enough interventions for the moment.
Edinburgh College is now the largest further education institution in Scotland and among the largest in the UK. It is better placed to serve the economic and skill needs of the growing Lothians population, and it will be no surprise that the first of the new college’s key principles is to put students first.
The Scottish Government, too, puts students first. The opportunities for all initiative is now fully operational, offering 16 to 19-year-olds a place in education or training. I am eagerly anticipating the progress that Edinburgh College will make, and I am pleased that it is leading the implementation of the necessary reforms.
The Government has continued to support further education, despite the unparalleled cuts from Westminster. The regional reforms are specifically designed to make colleges more efficient and responsive to the needs of students and those who will eventually hire them. Colleges will also be able to focus on how they can improve the local economy in these times of UK cuts and fiscal austerity, creating business innovation centres and working with local businesses to forge close links and ensure relevance of outcome from the colleges in terms of students having relevant courses and training to fit them for the commercial world.
Political point scoring at this point is not helpful, when we are dealing with the fall-out from Westminster-driven cuts. [Laughter.]
Order.
Regardless of what some people might think, the situation is the result of Westminster cuts. I am sure that those who are involved, whether they are teachers, students or college staff, are tired of negativity. I applaud the cabinet secretary and the Government for doing a remarkable job protecting Scottish further education in a situation of ever-reducing resources.
15:50
When I arrived in Parliament this morning I did not expect to be speaking in the debate, but I am taking the place of my colleague Michael McMahon, whose voice has been silenced in the debate. If he was speaking in the debate, I know that he would want to speak up for his constituents in Bellshill and Uddingston who have been denied places at college; he would want to focus on the cuts in college funding that are producing a crisis in our further education sector; and he would want to highlight the shambolic record, particularly in recent days, of Michael Russell, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, aided and abetted by the First Minister, Alex Salmond.
A lot of figures have been bandied about on both sides of the debate, but let us start by looking at the facts about the money. I will quote the figures from an independent source: the Auditor General for Scotland. Based on his figures, not any political party’s figures, there will be cuts of 24 per cent over the next four years in the further education budget. In terms of the reduction from last year to this year, it goes from £555 million to £546 million, a drop of £9 million. Going forward, there is a further £34 million drop to £512 million. Those are drops in cash terms; they do not take account of inflation. When we build in inflation, college budgets will be under even more pressure.
The response from the SNP, as we just heard from the previous speaker, is simply to blame the Westminster Government. It is time that the SNP and its back benchers took responsibility for their own budget.
I will make the same offer to Mr Kelly as I made to his colleague Mr Bibby the other week: if he can identify where we could extract funding in order to replace or increase funding in college budgets, we are more than happy to listen to him. Has he identified a budget line in that regard?
Absolutely. The Scottish Government has over 250 spin doctors, and £19 million is spent on national health service spin doctors. I would rather have places for college students than have spin doctors, who cannot even get their figures right.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you. [Interruption.]
Order.
When a minister is under threat of resignation, Mr Stevenson is perhaps the last person who should be on their feet defending him.
Let us look at Michael Russell’s record in recent days. We have heard about the flip-flop over the figures for college funding. However, one of the areas that appalled me was Mr Russell’s treatment of Kirk Ramsay. I have to be honest, because when I first heard that Mr Russell was saying that a private meeting had been recorded, I thought that perhaps he had a point. However, as the story developed, it turned out that there were between 80 and 100 people in the room at the discussion and that details of it were all over the internet.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
It was clearly a very public discussion. What appalled me even more was that Mr Russell then summoned Kirk Ramsay to Edinburgh alone, without explanation, to face up to him and his officials, and told him that, if he had the power, he would sack him. I believe that that is a cowardly act and not one that is fit for someone who heads up the country’s education service.
The impact of those actions and budget decisions is that we have 70,000 fewer people in college places at this time.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
Patricia Ferguson rightly pointed out the impact on women.
Will the member give way?
The member should sit down. I am not taking the intervention. [Interruption.]
Order.
When Mr Russell was challenged recently about the 21,000 people on waiting lists, he said that it was a falsehood. He should go and tell that to the fairies at the bottom of the garden, because we have heard plenty of practical examples.
I know that, if Michael McMahon was here today, he would want to speak up vociferously on behalf of his constituents, and I know that the staff and students in Scotland’s colleges are demoralised and have lost confidence in Mike Russell. Mr Russell, it is time to go.
15:56
I have done a quick calculation, and if £19 million is being spent on those 250 spin doctors, they must be earning £76,000 each. I look forward to the figures being further presented by Mr Kelly. However, even if they are correct, is the Labour Party’s solution to sack people? That seems to be the only suggestion that we have heard from the Labour Party.
I welcome today’s debate, because the provision of decent college places is something that should concern us all. It is important at the outset to reflect on the position of the EIS general secretary, Larry Flanagan, who said last weekend that students and teaching staff want to see the political parties get back to the issues rather than having arguments that are
“based around personal spats and party-political squabbling”.
I would have hoped to see—
Will the member give way?
I would love to give way to the honourable Claudia Beamish.
Just for the record, I have not used that title for a very long time because I do not believe—
Could you lift your microphone, please?
Sorry, Presiding Officer. That is not the title by which I wish to be addressed. I have not used it for many years, since I became an adult, which was rather a long time ago. Thank you.
What does the member think about the fact that, in the press release that we were all party to, Mr Flanagan went on to say:
“Now that the true extent of the cuts are no longer in dispute, we would argue that before decisions are taken about future spending on Further Education there should be an extended period of discussion during which the voices of those most closely involved in the provision and receipt of college education - the staff and students - are clearly heard.”
Would the member like to comment on that?
Before I do so, Presiding Officer, I know that time is tight in the debate, but I hope that I will get some time back for that intervention. I see that I will not. Well, I would like to thank Claudia Beamish for the amount of time that she took.
In this debate, it is important to focus on the issues rather than on the party-political squabbling. That is the point that I was trying to make.
I return to the issues. I was delighted to attend Cumbernauld College’s award ceremony last week, when I saw hundreds of young people from Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and beyond being honoured for their achievements. I would have thought that this debate, if anything, should be about encouraging such achievements. I will return to the local situation later if time allows, Presiding Officer.
It is important to focus on the reality of the situation for Scotland’s colleges. In that regard, I return to the point that Claudia Beamish made. Between 2007 and 2014-15, the SNP in Administration will invest £5 billion in colleges. That is 39 per cent more in cash terms than was spent under the two terms of the previous Administration.
Indeed, college student support is at record levels. In 2013-14 an additional £11.4 million will be allocated to the student support budget, so that it will be maintained at more than £95 million. That is 40 per cent higher than its level when Johann Lamont was a Scottish Executive minister. It is therefore little wonder that NUS Scotland president, Robin Parker, said:
“It’s fantastic that the money is now in place to provide financial help to the poorest students.”
It is important to place that on record.
I want to talk about some of the changes that are happening on the ground, because that is what the debate should be about. We see a different approach here in Scotland. There are massive cuts to the college budgets south of the border, but no impetus for reform of the sector. Here in Scotland we see reform of the college sector to provide a renewed focus. The approach is not that radical—after all, before the current structure was put in place by Michael Forsyth we had a rather similar model of regionalisation, albeit with different regions. Scotland’s Colleges welcomed the move to regionalisation in the briefing that it provided for this debate.
Lanarkshire is the region that affects my constituents most directly. It is important to note that the four colleges in that area are establishing a federation. At one stage there was an idea that colleges would be forced to merge, which was plainly untrue. In Lanarkshire we see a different approach, which I know the cabinet secretary has welcomed.
I have spoken regularly to the principal of Cumbernauld College, who, I have to say, would not be described as a shrinking violet or someone who is easily intimidated, as it has been suggested that college principals are. He speaks freely with me and talks about the challenges that are faced by the sector; I know that he has spoken to the cabinet secretary and the Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages. The principal is behind the idea of regionalisation and an agreement has been established between the four colleges that are involved. That will provide a new focus for the sector in the area that I represent. The colleges are working to build on existing high attainment levels, increase activity levels, deliver regional specialisms, provide high-quality learning experiences and continue to equip learners well to help them secure good-quality enterprise skills, jobs and careers. That is what colleges should be about, and I am glad that Cumbernauld College and Lanarkshire are getting geared up to do that. They will work with the Scottish Government towards that end.
16:02
The FE sector is in a dire situation and we must honestly address the funding deficit, the damage that has been done and the cabinet secretary’s dismal performance. I understand how painful that must be for the cabinet secretary and how upset he must get when he is asked difficult questions such as, “If you knew the figures were wrong, why didn’t you tell the First Minister?” and, “Is that an apology?”
I do not want to dwell on the debacle of the college budget inaccuracies for too long, but it is important to have the correct perspective on the figures. Even the true bottom line figures do not do that. The drop in final budgets from £555 million to £546 million hides inconvenient truths about how those figures are composed. The bottom line figure for 2012-13 includes £15 million for college transformation. Without that funding in 2013-14, the bottom line figure drops to £512 million, so I ask the cabinet secretary please to stop his pretence. This is not about bolstering the college sector; it is about managing its decline.
Recent figures show that students from deprived areas are still disadvantaged in terms of getting to university, which makes college education an especially important factor in tackling deprivation. I am surprised that the cabinet secretary does not seem to understand that. While colleges struggle, universities have been cushioned from the cuts, which has prompted accusations of the rich being propped up at the expense of the poor. Universities attempt to address that by taking students from colleges. However, in my constituency, Motherwell College has had to refuse more than two thousand applications, so that will not be an easy route. I know that some people will have found places elsewhere, but for a variety of factors—not the least of which is costs—people tend not to travel far for college places. Given the axed courses and shortage of places, some people will not even have applied.
There is also evidence that young people are staying on at school longer, which will increase future demand. In North Lanarkshire, more than 2,000 16 to 19-year-olds are not in education, employment or training. That figure will be an underestimate by 20 per cent or more, and I would bet that quite a few of those 2,500 young people applied to colleges. From their point of view, the Scottish Government’s pledge to 16 to 19-year-olds looks like a bad joke. For many, the FE sector is the doorway to higher education and the key to the labour market, and they must feel that the Scottish Government has locked that door and thrown away the key.
This is the second year that there has been a problem for Motherwell College following cuts in funding, courses and staff. Nationally, cuts in FE teaching budgets saw staff numbers slashed by 1,300 last year. There is also a problem for older students, with the Government policy prioritising places for 16 to 19-year-olds as it tries to massage the youth unemployment figures.
If the Government were trying to massage the unemployment figures by creating college courses, why would it have made the priority full-time courses and not part-time courses? That would have allowed it to massage the figures more than it could through the figures for full-time courses.
I am not surprised by the number of interventions from SNP back benchers. I assume that the First Minister is planning a reshuffle.
It is estimated that 70,000 people are being deprived of lifelong learning because part-time courses have been dropped. Those cannot be dismissed as mere “hobby” courses, because they all contribute to our ideal of a learning society. We might think that such large numbers of people being affected would concentrate the minds of ministers—for electoral reasons, if for no other—but I am told that the view has been expressed that there are no votes in college funding.
Understanding the damage that has been caused is not just about recognising the big numbers that are involved. The individual consequences can, in many ways, bring home more strongly the short-sightedness and unfairness of the cuts. Deprived of a job, a course and the prospect of a life that is going somewhere, what do people do? Some rise above it and make a voluntary contribution to society, some sink into apathy and despair and some take out their anger on society. Everyone has to meet the costs of apathy and alienation, so what is the point of all the talk of preventative spending if we then cut college budgets? Would it not be far better to invest in the future of our people?
Colleges also have a wider social role. A school in my area has a link arrangement with Motherwell College to enable secondary 5 and 6 pupils who have additional support needs to study part time in order to assist with the transition from school. That arrangement has now been cut back to just S6 students. How long before it goes completely? Is that what Mike Russell means by “substantial commitment”?
Especially after recent events, it is clear that students and would-be students including the thousands in North Lanarkshire have no confidence in Mike Russell. College heads and staff have no confidence in Mike Russell. Many members here—possibly even among his colleagues—have no confidence in Mike Russell. The Government’s policies are wrong and must change. If that means that Mike Russell must go, that is fine by me.
I call Mark McDonald to be followed by Alison Johnstone. Time is very tight.
16:09
I will start by putting to bed the issue about bullying. On “Good Morning Scotland” on 17 November, Derek Bateman said:
“we also spoke to the college lecturers association. They told us as far as they’re concerned there is no culture of ... bullying from government. The EIS said that bullying’s not an issue that they’re concerned with. They think actually that the publicity this has had has distracted from the real issues ... The civil service union, the PCS, said there was no sign of bullying or fear”.
Let us put the matter straight to bed right now and instead talk about the reform that is necessary in the college sector.
I have already quoted from a 2004 EIS response to a consultation by the then Scottish Executive on proposed changes to further education college boards of management. In the same response, the EIS also said:
“It is, therefore, the view of the EIS that the continued atomisation of the further education sector through individually managed colleges is not in the best interests of students, staff or the public purse.”
Eight years on, we finally have an education secretary who has grasped that bull by the horns and is driving forward the much-needed reform of the college sector that has been called for for many years.
In the north-east, which I represent, the new regional lead for the Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire region will be Ken Milroy, the former chair of Aberdeen College. On his appointment to that position on 20 July, he said:
“By planning on a regional basis we have the opportunity to re-think, re-shape and join up education to better meet the needs of learners in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire. By sharing resources and engaging with businesses to maximise local career opportunities, we will further support the local and national economy.”
That sharing of resources in the north-east will happen not just within the further education sector but between the FE sector and the higher education sector because, as well as collaboration between Banff and Buchan College and Aberdeen College, there will be collaboration with Robert Gordon University and the University of Aberdeen. Indeed, I suggest that the north-east provides a strong model of best practice that other areas should consider replicating.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
Another point is that colleges across Scotland currently have £200 million in reserves. Having looked back at the Official Report of last week’s debate, I see that the Conservative finance spokesperson, Gavin Brown, said:
“I note that Angela Constance and Marco Biagi think that the solution to our college crisis is to spend the reserves. We should not worry about what might come in the future; if we spend those reserves, everything will be absolutely fine.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2012; c 13468.]
I know that Mr Brown is the finance spokesperson, but he clearly does not understand the concept of reserves. The reserves were built up during the good times. When we come into times of difficulty and when reform is required, that is when we should draw down the reserves to cushion colleges and to make the necessary changes through reform and reorganisation to drive things forward.
Will the member give way?
No thank you. Mr Brown can deal with that point in his summing up. My time is tight.
That is what developing and building up reserves is for. [Interruption.]
Order. The member is not giving way.
I will make no apologies for speaking about the capital investment programme, because the fantastic new facility at Banff and Buchan College in Fraserburgh is delivering real benefits to students. The students now have better facilities, with a more special space that allows them to meet with their colleagues and to work together on group projects. In a rural setting in which many people have to travel great distances from home to attend college, it is especially important that students have a space that they can use outside the regular class environment. That new facility is also much more accessible—I take on board the cabinet secretary’s point about the need to ensure that outcomes are in place—which ensures that disabled learners, by which I mean not just the learning disabled but all disabled learners, are catered for.
In addition, the new facility at Banff and Buchan College and the recladding project at Aberdeen College will help to drive down energy costs significantly. That will allow money to be spent on reinvestment in front-line services instead of being spent on heating and lighting inefficient buildings. That is a benefit that will be recognised and seen by students.
Regionalisation will also provide local benefits through having a federal structure that will lead to increased efficiency and an enhanced learner experience. A jointly planned curriculum covering the whole region will be of benefit to learners because it will put them at the centre and it will align with identified demand across the north-east. That will also ensure that the colleges deliver break-even financial positions.
However, the benefits will be felt not just within the north-east. Geoff Fenlon, the principal and chief executive of Carnegie College, has said that the 13 regional colleges
“will present us all with a fantastic opportunity to create something new and exciting.”
I think that we need to grasp that “new and exciting” opportunity and feed that into the wider collaboration not just within the further education sector but between further education and higher education. I emphasise again that the north-east region has best practice, which should be considered as such, in that regard.
16:14
This is an important debate to be having as we scrutinise the budget and as we work together to ensure that people have every opportunity to access education and meaningful employment—to be skilled and reskilled.
Patricia Ferguson and others have raised the issue of women in college. The Herald reported that thousands of women have been hit by college cuts. Its report highlighted that female college numbers have dropped by a quarter over the four years to 2010-11, while over the same period male numbers have reduced at only half that rate. There are still more women in college than men, but changes have clearly hit them hardest—we have lost more than 40,000 women from further education in four years. Let us not get bogged down in full-time equivalents versus head count—this is about individual opportunities.
Why is that the case? Although the Government has given such welcome and well-publicised support to students, anyone dropping by the debate could be forgiven for being confused. The answer lies in the Government’s decision to prioritise full-time college provision to support young people who are at risk of unemployment. It is well recognised that a key benefit of colleges is their ability to offer flexible learning. That is essential for many women as they often have multiple caring roles in their households. Not surprisingly, the stats show that evening and weekend and distance learning courses are more popular with women.
The debate is about opportunity, people’s lives and the quality of those lives. It is vital that it does not become a numbers game about employment statistics. The decision to focus on 16 to 25-year-olds’ full-time courses is a reaction to youth unemployment. We all agree that bringing young people into college is important, but we must recognise the link between adult unemployment and future generations. We will not break the cycle of poverty or disadvantage with a focus on young people that may limit parental opportunities, whether those parents fit the 16 to 25-year-old age bracket or not. It is incredibly important to give people with children who want to learn the opportunity to do so. Parents are children’s first and on-going educators.
Are colleges soft targets in comparison with what is too often viewed as the more elite university sector?
Will the member give way?
Yes—but be brief, please.
Does Ms Johnstone accept that it remains the case that the majority of courses remain part-time? Does she accept that childcare funding has increased by 42 per cent? Does she accept that there are no campus closures? Those are all beneficial to women who want to access their local colleges.
I will try to come on to those issues.
In contrast with the Westminster Government, the Scottish Government has shown that it believes that access to education should be based on the ability to learn and not the ability to pay. What the Government must do now is ensure that the benefits are available equitably to those who want to learn. My experience in Lothian tells me that that is not solely about college funding; the minister raised childcare, which is a vital part of the debate.
With a local MP and councillor, I recently visited Stepping Stones children’s centre in north Edinburgh. We spent time meeting, listening to and learning from a lively group of young mums. I was struck by their burning desire to learn and improve themselves. We met on Wednesday, and one of the young mums was due to start college the following Monday, but had not been able to confirm childcare arrangements because she did not yet have a final college timetable, which she would not get until she started the course. She told me that there is a nursery connected to the college, but that she could not afford, and often did not need, the half-day minimum booking. She suggested that the nursery placements were filled by families with steady work.
I have just found out that that determined young woman managed to secure childcare, although some months into her course. I am delighted that she sustained the college place; the professionals who have been working with the young woman described the start to her college career as “extremely stressful”. Most worrying, the other young mums, aware of their friend’s difficulty, said that they had simply resigned themselves to the fact that while their children were young, college might not be an option.
Will the member give way?
I think that I am about to address Aileen Campbell’s point.
I appreciate that the Government is investigating the possibility of providing the current five morning or afternoon sessions in a more flexible format, and I would welcome an update on that. If childcare could be offered in the college setting so that people did not have to pay for childcare while they were travelling, that would be a great advance, and one that would be warmly welcomed by a lot of people in that position.
A local English lecturer has written to me to express concerns about cuts to higher English courses at her college, which is an important access course for a great many people. The loss of more than 1,000 college staff will, of course, lead to the loss of courses. Although budget cuts mean that we ensure that there is no unnecessary duplication, we must ensure that course provision is accessible.
Access to education and lifelong learning for all brings many benefits to individuals. It increases wellbeing, boosts self-esteem and confidence and is well worth protecting and funding. Education in its broadest sense is about much more than qualifications.
The Greens will support the Lib Dem amendment. Confidence in the Scottish Government has been shaken and people rightly expect the education secretary to understand that his political decision to focus on full-time courses will impact on people who have different needs. We all can and do make mistakes, but people expect the education secretary to know the education budget inside out. Reassuring nods from ministers are cold comfort to those who are impacted by the reality of losing millions from the college pot.
The next two speakers have been advised that I can give them only 4 minutes each.
16:20
Due to a cut in my speaking time, I will not take interventions.
In my 40 years in politics, I have heard many Labour and Tory ministers having to apologise to various Parliaments regarding unintentionally wrong figures that they have given. I am reminded of the old saying, “Let he or she who is without sin cast the first stone.” The cabinet secretary has apologised and, as far as I am concerned, we should move on. I contend that he is doing an exceptional job. The personal attacks on his character should stop, but I know that they will not, because the Labour Party, the Tories and the Liberals will play personal politics rather than concentrate on facts. That is their agenda now, and we all know it.
It is the job of the Opposition to oppose, but it is also the job of Opposition to provide other options—John Pentland should remember that—not personal attacks. Personal attacks show that the Opposition parties have nothing to contribute. On many occasions, I have sat in the chamber and listened to Labour, Tory and Liberal members bleating about budget cuts and bleating that more money must be spent on this and that. Have they told us what they would do? No. It is a case of power without responsibility.
The debate should concentrate on what is happening in education. I did not get the opportunity to go to university, but my wife and I ensured that both our children did; we ensured that they got a good education. In its first term in office, the SNP Government ensured that they did not have to pay graduation fees when they left university, as many other students did. We are protecting students in Scotland. The Scottish Government has done the best for students and university graduates under the stewardship of an exceptional cabinet secretary. He is working hard and for the best for Scotland and the education system.
The Government has done many things to improve our education system. I intend to give figures to support my contention that work is being carried out in the education sector. I do not intend to nod my head and, if I give a wrong figure, it will be unintentional. I also intend to be clear.
Our college reforms will strengthen the sector at a time when the Scottish budget faces unprecedented cuts from the Tory-Liberal Democrat Government at Westminster. While the Opposition parties obsess about political point scoring, we are overseeing reform and taking action.
Despite the UK Government passing down unprecedented cuts to Scotland, we are maintaining college student support at record levels. We are protecting students and we are maintaining FTE teaching activity. We have no tuition fees. I believe that Labour and the Tories would bring back tuition fees—the Tories and Liberals have already done so in England.
Our college reforms will strengthen the sector, resulting in higher-quality training and skills provision. It is the first time in almost 20 years that reform of the sector has been considered, and the SNP believes that it is necessary.
We are maintaining college student support at record levels. I support the cabinet secretary.
16:24
The date for the merger of Dundee College and Angus College has just been announced as 1 November 2013. That gives us one year to make a smooth transition to a new single college.
The key to a successful transition rests with those who are at the heart of further education. It is vital that they have confidence in the education secretary to deliver the kind of institution that they expect and deserve. For the hundreds on the waiting list who want to learn—in Dundee, that figure stood at more than 500 last week—that means that the courses that they choose to do are still available.
The education secretary’s role is to show the type of leadership that will inspire confidence among the students and staff at Dundee College and Angus College that their needs are at the core of his reforms, but for many that confidence just is not there.
Colleges have always been the great champions of second chances for those who are not ready for further education when they leave school. A few weeks ago, I was lucky enough to attend Angus College’s graduation ceremony. I saw many mature women cross the stage and pick up qualifications in accountancy and marketing. In doing so, they were creating more opportunities and better lives for themselves and their families. However, the Government’s funding model will mean fewer and fewer second chances for older students, and women in particular. Women are being hit the hardest.
At that graduation ceremony in Arbroath, Damien Yeates, the head of Skills Development Scotland, said that people in Scotland are now expected to have approximately eight different jobs in their lifetime, so where are the opportunities for reskilling? I will take the example of the renewables industry that Dundee and Angus are waiting for a share of. Should our Government not be harnessing the skills of engineers who lost their jobs when firms such as NCR moved production from Dundee? Those people have immensely transferable skills that could be used in the renewables industry. Letting those over-25-year-olds take a short course would provide a strongly skilled and varied workforce to attract international renewables companies to our region.
Opportunities for retraining must be supported by a Government that takes our economy seriously and wants to support a strong and flexible economy and workforce, but second chances are going under this education secretary. That is not what I say; it is what our colleges say. At a time of recession, retraining should be one of the highest political priorities, but how can we have confidence that an education secretary who cannot get his bottom-line figures correct will realise the impact—which I have just outlined—that the cut to the teaching grant is having?
Dundee and Angus trade unions said this week that they have no confidence in the education secretary. The future of our college training sector is too important to be left to a politician who cannot get his figures right. It is time for the cabinet secretary to go.
We come to the closing speeches. I call Liam McArthur, who has six minutes.
Are you sure that it is now?
Yes, it is now, Mr McArthur. Please make your closing speech.
16:27
I started my earlier speech with an apology. Mike MacKenzie has since invited me to clarify the record at the earliest opportunity in relation to the Gourock to Dunoon ferry. I will quote from a letter from the cabinet secretary to The Herald:
“I have backed calls for an appropriate inquiry ... I absolutely support the right of”
the members of the ferry action group
“to go to the Ombudsman.”
I think that it is beyond peradventure that he has written to the ombudsman.
Today’s debate has done a number of things. It has rightly underscored the importance of the college sector to Scotland. Although the role of the colleges is not simply economic, there is no getting away from the fact that in these difficult economic times, when unemployment—particularly youth unemployment—is rising more quickly in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK, colleges are of critical importance in laying the foundations for recovery. Despite the tone of much of the debate, I do not believe that anyone in the chamber disagrees with that simple truth.
Despite the wording of his motion, Mr Russell appeared to accept that college students and staff face significant challenges. In doing likewise, Jamie Hepburn was an honourable exception among SNP back benchers. On the basis of one email from the principal of North Highland College, Rob Gibson appeared to dismiss anyone who raised concerns anywhere else in the country as moaners and anyone who disagreed with the Government’s approach on the matter as somehow suffering from a mental health disorder.
Rob Gibson rose—
Sit down.
Can I stop you for a moment, Mr McArthur? I remind members that the only person in the chamber who can tell anyone to sit down is the Presiding Officer. If anyone does not wish to take an intervention, I expect them to decline the request politely.
I apologise to Rob Gibson and to you for that, Presiding Officer.
Colin Beattie made a plea for no political point scoring over Westminster cuts. That demonstrates that there is no willingness to accept that many of the challenges that the college sector faces are a direct result of decisions by the SNP Government and the cabinet secretary. As Jeremy Peat of the David Hume Institute put it,
“This is a difficult time for the sector, facing the challenges of coping with constraints on funding, implementing rapid and substantial organisational change and of playing a key role in meeting the government’s challenge to provide an opportunity for all”.
It will simply not wash to blame Westminster, Opposition parties and forces of conservatism in the college sector. The issues are serious and have serious consequences for colleges, staff, students, businesses and our economy. Neil Findlay, Patricia Ferguson and Jenny Marra among others set out local impacts. Many have quoted Larry Flanagan. He is right to say that we need to focus on addressing the serious issues, but the cabinet secretary’s actions undermine efforts to do so.
That is not to say that Mr Russell is doing everything wrong or that he has not taken action that will be in the college sector’s long-term interests. However, it is demonstrable that he prefers to assert rather than genuinely listen, that he is intolerant of anyone who dares to express a contrary view or even question his decisions, and that he has been so obsessed with creating the impression that he is right and everyone else is wrong that he has ended up misleading Parliament and the people of Scotland over funding.
This is not a case of reading a table incorrectly or even a case of muddled thinking when faced with the undoubted complexity of college funding. If that had been the case, it would not have taken until 18 October for Mr Russell to put the record straight by writing to the Education and Culture Committee. I cannot believe that, with historic numbers of Government ministers and special advisers, no one spotted the error for more than four months.
I see that in a press release of 10 September, which is still happily carried on the Scottish Government’s website today, Mr Russell again cheerfully claimed that within the cumulative amount of funding that had been paid out to colleges since 2007
“lies an increase in funding for the coming academic year”.
Surely to goodness somebody in the Government would have spotted that. Surely someone realised that the figures are going down and not up.
Even if it took four months to wake up to the facts and identify the error, it beggars belief that Mr Russell allowed the First Minister to assert repeatedly that college funding is going up and not down. If someone cannot correctly identify the detail of the decisions that they are taking, it is difficult to see how they can be expected to deal with the consequences.
It is little wonder that we are witnessing a loss of confidence in the education secretary across the college sector. The situation is compounded by the fallout from Mr Russell’s histrionics over the so-called spy-pen-gate. As James Kelly highlighted, Mr Russell’s shameful overreaction to the former chair of Stow College recording a meeting that was attended by more than 80 people and whose details are freely available on the internet exposed a side of the education secretary that many had long suspected and of which a number had felt the full force in the past.
At a time of major reforms to the college sector, a wide range of Government commitments to be delivered and deep funding cuts, one would expect the education secretary to be in full listening mode. The fact that he is not has done great damage to him and the Government as a whole. Even when what he is doing is right, he has left himself weakened and compromised.
It is right that we have had the debate this afternoon, but it is regrettable that it was necessary. If it is to serve a useful purpose, it must deliver what is needed for students, staff and businesses across Scotland. If it is to safeguard and improve quality, choice and access in college provision, it must signal a change in funding arrangements for the college sector, a change in attitude and approach from the Scottish Government and—I believe, on the basis of today’s debate—a change in the education secretary.
16:33
The debate is critical for students, staff and the wider Scottish economy. At a time of a high unemployment rate and a particularly high youth unemployment rate, we must—for everybody’s sake—get it right for colleges across Scotland.
Richard Lyle called for facts—he said that the debate had not had enough facts and figures—so let us turn to facts and figures. Every SNP speaker has complained that the blame lies at the door of Westminster cuts. All SNP members want to blame Westminster and they say that it is all because of the cuts—
That is a good starting point: there is less money from Westminster.
I do not know whether Mr Stevenson is interpreting for the back benchers around him, to explain what is going on in the college debate.
Can members please desist from making comments from a sedentary position? If members want to request an intervention, they can do so, and the member who is making a speech can decide whether to take it.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
There has been nothing from the SNP but blame at Westminster’s door. Let us look at the Scottish Government’s budget document. Early on in it, the Scottish Government clearly states what it believes to be the total departmental expenditure limit figure for 2012-13. It claims that that figure is £28.603 billion. For next year—2013-14—it claims that the figure is £28.441 billion. I accept that that is a cash-terms cut: if my calculations are correct, it is a cash-terms cut of just under 0.5 per cent.
The Scottish budget as a whole for next year is therefore being cut by just under 0.5 per cent.
Will the member give way?
I will not give way at this stage because Mr McDonald, who namechecked me several times, refused to give way to me and to other members. Let me make some progress.
Using the First Minister’s figures, the college budget will go from £546 million in 2012-13 to £511.7 million in 2013-14, which is a cut of £34 million or just over 6 per cent. Therefore, the Scottish budget as a whole is going down by 0.5 per cent while the college revenue budget is going down by 6 per cent. That shows the priority that the SNP Government gives to colleges. It is its political choice to reduce the college budget and to reduce it year on year.
There have been interesting contributions from SNP back benchers. Joan McAlpine claimed that the FSB is behind what the Scottish Government is doing, and there were claims that the SCDI is behind what it is doing. During the debate, I sought those organisations’ written submissions to the Education and Culture Committee. The FSB said:
“We recognise the need for colleges to operate more efficiently and for greater collaboration however we are concerned about a decline in further education spending, despite additional allocations in the 2013-2014 budget.”
The SCDI said:
“SCDI members remain concerned that despite”
the increase in the 2012-13 budget,
“the long-term trend for college funding is a substantial cut.”
The organisations that were quoted in defence of what the Government is doing therefore said something quite different in black and white in their written submissions to the Education and Culture Committee.
Several members have proposed that the way to get through things is to spend the reserves. It is true that I was critical of those who suggested that as the primary way forward last week. There will be a cut of £34 million in the next financial year, but we see from the budget that there will be a further substantial drop in the year after that—in 2014-15. The budget will not be £511 million; it will be down to £470 million. If the answer is to spend the reserves, it could mean that half of the reserves are spent in only two financial years in trying to plug the gap that the Scottish Government has created. I do not understand how anybody can suggest that that is a sensible way forward and a sustainable solution to what the Scottish Government is imposing on the college sector.
Students are worried about what is going on, and staff are extremely worried, too. It is absolutely clear that, next year, the Scottish budget for colleges will go down substantially in revenue terms. I call on the cabinet secretary to acknowledge in his closing speech the fact that the college budget will go down substantially next year and substantially further the year after that.
I also call on the cabinet secretary to start to be a champion of the sector. The sector needs a cabinet secretary who will stand up for it and put its case forward to other cabinet secretaries and the First Minister. It needs someone who is prepared to fight for it, not somebody who will say—as this cabinet secretary did a year ago, just before there was an increase—that the settlement for colleges is “full, fair and final”. Scotland’s colleges, people and students deserve better.
Before I call Mr Henry, I want to clarify the order of speakers for the debate, because there was some confusion when I set out the closing speakers. Because only the Liberal Democrat amendment was selected for the debate, the order of the opening speakers was Government, Liberal Democrat, Labour and Conservative. However, for the closing speeches, the order reverts back to normal and therefore becomes Liberal Democrat, Conservative, Labour and Government.
16:40
Mike Russell is no Sean Penn, but I am reminded of the film “Dead Man Walking”, in which Sean Penn appeared, because it is unprecedented to have the three main opposition parties together calling for the resignation of a Government minister. There is no doubt that we have a crisis in further education.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
People at staff level across Scotland are speaking out, but people at senior level are being gagged. There is a crisis in morale. As my Labour colleagues have articulated during the debate, the issue is the impact that the cuts are having on students the length and breadth of Scotland—including, tragically, students with learning difficulties.
The problem is that, when we try to reflect our constituents’ concerns, we are faced with college-cuts deniers on the SNP benches. That is what they are. They deny consistently that there are college cuts—or they did until recently.
Will the member take an intervention?
Mr Brodie, please sit down.
This is not just a parliamentary spat; it is about whether we can believe anything that is said by those who are charged with protecting Scotland’s colleges. Staff in Scotland’s colleges have watched Mike Russell’s performance in recent weeks with astonishment. Other members have referred to the Kirk Ramsay episode, which revealed an inappropriate use of Mike Russell’s position and power to deal with an issue for which he admitted he had no responsibility. Mike Russell said that he did not think that it was right for Kirk Ramsay to make a recording of a meeting, but the details of the meeting had, in fact, been put on the internet by Scotland’s Colleges. We were able to see in full detail exactly what was said by Mike Russell and by just about every speaker at the meeting.
There is an issue when Mike Russell very publicly berates someone who has a hearing impairment and who uses something to assist them. Disability discrimination legislation talks about supporting people to overcome their impairments and disabilities, but that seems to have mattered not a jot to the cabinet secretary. It was astonishing that he bothered to take legal advice on whether he could do anything, when his Government did not bother to take any legal advice on membership of the European Union and then went to court to avoid telling us whether it had taken any legal advice.
Mike Russell has denied, spun and twisted, and in that he has been ably supported by Alex Salmond. They have denied the facts. They said one thing in the chamber and were forced to apologise only when they were discovered. They did not come to apologise because they had realised that there was a problem and wanted to put the record straight; they came back to Parliament only when the facts were prised out.
Members should listen to some of the things that Mike Russell has said over the months. He has said, “My figures are impeccable.” Oh, yes: aren’t they, indeed? How about this one? He said:
“One of the problems is that sometimes figures are misrepresented”.—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 23 October 2012; c 1553.]
They certainly are, and Alex Salmond was very good at doing that, was he not?
Then, it took five months—five months!—for Mike Russell to come and apologise. He knew that there was a problem in June, because Neil Bibby made a point of order and pointed out that what he had said was not true and had been contradicted the day before by Alasdair Allan, as Patricia Ferguson said. Mike Russell knew then that there was an issue of accuracy, but still he did not come to Parliament to apologise. His apology was prised out of him five months later.
Last week, Alex Salmond, apart from telling us that he was giving us the most accurate figures that the Parliament had ever seen, did not know, and his officials did not know, despite—
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
Alex Salmond and his officials did not know the figures, despite our having given them Audit Scotland’s figures and, indeed, their own figures. The press was given the information. We have a problem when ministers are either incompetent or are knowingly misleading colleges.
Jamie Hepburn talked about investment in colleges. Investment in colleges went up every year since devolution, with the exception of 2008-09, when there was a small reduction for the first time, and now, when there is a significant reduction. In every year since devolution before the SNP came into power, there was an increase in the resource budget in real terms.
Mike Russell asked college heads to take an 18 per cent cut and they more or less agreed to thole that. He then went back on his word and came back for more, despite college heads having tightened their belts. He told colleges that appointments would be done through the public appointments process, but he went back on his word and started to impose people himself. He broke his word on two issues. His ministerial interference on appointments risks the loss of charitable status.
Mike Russell said that there was a “false concept” in relation to waiting lists, but now it appears that he is auditing the false concept. What is happening now is that there is a shift of money away from urban areas, the areas of greatest deprivation and the areas of greatest need. There are cuts, cuts, cuts by the SNP Government.
Staff throughout Scotland are losing confidence. As we heard, trade unions in Angus College and Dundee College have lost confidence. Jewel and Esk College EIS members passed a motion of no confidence. George Adam said that colleges across Scotland have confidence in the cabinet secretary, but the EIS-Further Education Lecturers Association branch committee at his local college, Reid Kerr College in Paisley, declared that it has no confidence in Mike Russell. Over the next week we will hear more college staff say that they have no confidence in Mike Russell, because across Scotland we are witnessing the human cost of the callous disregard for our colleges.
If Mike Russell had any integrity and decency he would step down. He would go now.
16:48
I think that, among people who have watched this afternoon’s debate at home, the commonest view will be that the debate has been unpleasant, not just for me but for the Parliament, the sector and the country.
It has been unpleasant for the Parliament because people watching from the outside did not get—except from SNP members—the focus on places, colleges and services that Unison, for example, wanted; instead, what they got from the Opposition parties was the political bun fight that they said they did not want.
It has been unpleasant for the sector because of substantial misrepresentation—for political purposes—of what is taking place. I have had a substantial number of letters and phone calls from people in the sector in the past couple of weeks. I have not made anything of it, because I stand by my decisions.
I have not asked the permission of people to quote them but I will quote two without their permission. I will not name them; perhaps later they will want to stand up. One letter says:
“You and I have had a number of, from my perspective, valuable discussions which I hope, have in part, formed your thinking. I am sure you will agree it is always valuable to have such constructive and challenging views.”
Another says:
“If it is any small comfort to you as someone who is leading that change process, there are a number of leaders within the sector who are supporters of reform, who understand the need and crucially how to enact sustainable positive change. It is deeply regretful that given the behaviour and attitudes of a few, changes in legislation may be the only way forward.”
I appreciate those views—
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
No, I am not giving way—and I give notice that I will not give way in this speech because I want to cover a lot of ground. A lot of ground has already been covered in the debate.
More widely, there is substantial support for change within the system. I was intrigued to hear Liam McArthur quote the chair of Angus College; indeed, I was even more intrigued to hear Jenny Marra’s assertion of what is being thought in Angus College about change. On 14 August 2012, the principal of Angus College said, on his own website:
“I am delighted the past year has proven to be our most successful year to date but we are approaching a new era and our over-riding aim is to build on our strengths and deliver the best service to our communities. We will continue to improve lives by realising our aspirations and by achieving excellence in learning, facilities and leadership. We look to the future with ambition in our eyes.”
Despite what we have heard, that is the view of Angus College.
This has also been a disappointing debate for the country, because the people looking at this will be saying: “Is that it? Is that all the Scottish Parliament can do?” After the Scottish Parliament heard full and comprehensive apologies not just from me but from the First Minister, what we have seen actually dishonours the whole process. [Interruption.]
Order!
As the First Minister rightly pointed out today, this is I think the only Parliament in the world that would not take and accept an apology but would endeavour to carry on with the process for what are entirely political reasons.
If the Opposition parties in this Parliament wish to have a dialectic or debate that is intolerant of every error of fact, they had better start looking at their own contributions this very day. I am not just talking about the contribution from the leader of the Tories regarding all those courses that apparently no longer exist—but which, of course, do exist. We also need to look at some other issues that have arisen today. If members want a purely factual debate, I suggest that a number who have made contributions in this chamber should check the Official Report very carefully indeed. I draw Gavin Brown’s attention to last week’s Official Report, in which he talks about
“a 6 per cent real-terms cut to the Scottish DEL budget”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2012; c 13469.]
He will want to check whether in actual fact he said the same thing today. I am also extremely keen to see Mr Kelly justify his assertions about the number and cost of spin doctors. Fortunately, the chamber knows the means by which corrections can be made. Members can follow the lead of SNP members in being sure to make corrections, and I hope that that they will do just that.
The key moment in this debate—[Interruption.]
Order, please.
The key moment in this debate was not simply the repetition of my own apology; it was not even my invitation for others to join in. The key moment was this: I announced in my speech a new strategic forum, indicated how I would start it off and expand it and invited the Opposition spokespeople to meet with it to find a means by which we could learn from the processes of the past few weeks. Not a single response came from an Opposition spokesperson—not one. There were many protestations of support for change but, when the opportunity existed to take part in that process and, indeed, possibly, in their own terms to correct it, answer came there none. When I heard those protestations of support for change, I was reminded of the words of the late Donnie Stewart, who talked about giving assistance short of actual help. There is no support for reform in this chamber apart from on these benches, and that was obvious today.
There were one or two deeply unpleasant moments. I have to say that the worst of them, which was pointed out by my colleagues to my right, came when Mr Colin Beattie raised the issue of Westminster cuts. What happened—and I hope that the record shows it—was that Mr Findlay and the Labour front benches found it immensely amusing, almost as amusing as the Tories found it. So we know that Labour’s attitude to Westminster cuts is to laugh at them with the Tories. That tells us so much. [Laughter.] Go on and laugh at it.
Order.
Go on and laugh at it—[Interruption.]
Order.
Something else happened in today’s debate that was significant in respect of the Labour Party: today gave the absolute lie to Labour being a party of honest reform. This was its chance to step up to the plate, to say, “Yes, as the independent budget review said, it is right to look at the issue of colleges. Let’s work together to make the necessary change.” That would have been the honest thing to do. However, Labour is without courage and without honesty.
Today’s debate also gave the lie to the Tory passion for colleges, because there are cuts south of the border and there are fees south of the border. I admire Liz Smith—I have worked well with her on a whole range of education issues—and I was disappointed by the personal nature of her speech, which put politics before education.
Inevitably, I was also disappointed by the Lib Dem speeches—particularly by the tone of Liam McArthur’s speech. If he reads my opening speech, he will realise that I accepted issues that he had raised. He did not seem to accept a single issue that I raised. People say that he is a reasonable man; we did not see much sign of that reasonableness today. I hope that on reflection he will realise that the way forward is to work as a chamber to make sure that we get this right, rather than to score points.
I want to deal with one or two substantive points as I conclude. In-year revisions have added £67.5 million, and that is real help for the sector. There was no acknowledgement at all from Opposition members that that is money that is helping the sector. There are benefits for staff from the reorganisations: representation is being guaranteed for the first time as well as a single set of terms and conditions. I indicated in my opening speech a willingness to continue to discuss that and I want to do so. Mr Findlay never even mentioned it.
There is a focus on student support and I am disappointed that the Tories have criticised it, because the NUS has argued strongly and cogently for exactly the system that we are putting in place.
On the issue of learning disability, at least I have met the group. Mr Findlay made a whole series of assertions and I hope that he feels foolish after the intervention of Joan McAlpine, who spoke from real experience of the subject.
I want to thank Alison Johnstone, who made a sensible suggestion and is passionate about the issue of women’s education. I am happy to work with her and I think that she is a reasonable person who will want to work with me to make sure that this takes place, because her speech was one of the more reasonable ones.
The debate was about young people and about progress for young people, yet the word cloud for today’s debate—particularly from Labour members—will tell you something. Mentions of me or of “cabinet secretary” or of who I am that were made: by Neil Bibby, 17; Patricia Ferguson, 15; James Kelly, 10; John Pentland, 11; and Jenny Marra, 6. That tells you what Labour is about: Labour is not about young people; it is about the politics of this and trying to score political points.
As I said at the beginning, people watching the debate at home will have said to themselves—quite justifiably, given the nature of the debate—“What on earth is going on?” [Laughter.] Yes—[Interruption.]
Order.
“What on earth is going on?” they will have said, and they will have watched what just happened and said it again.
I will tell you what is going on. First of all, I am going on. This Government is going on. The process of reform is going on. The work to increase opportunity in Scotland is going on. The fight against Westminster cuts is going on and I believe that the more the Opposition behaves as it has done this afternoon, the more the cause of independence goes on.