Chamber and committees

I am not against looking at means of funding. I will look at efficiencies in funding and how we can do things better, but I suspect that the answer is more complex than a simple political line.

I will return to what I was talking about. The latest version of the strategic direction for Forth Valley College was published in February this year. Reiterating my point about outcomes, I always welcome that approach. Colleges throughout Scotland do a remarkable job in addressing our economic needs and providing opportunities for all, particularly our young people. They are a safe and welcoming learning environment for people with disabilities and for older students who are continuing their lifelong learning journey. They have areas of expertise that attract students from beyond the region, including from overseas, and they have strong articulation links with universities.

Our college teaching staff are the best paid in the United Kingdom, and that reflects the priority that we give to investing in colleges. They will be a key player as we transition to a net zero economy, and, as the constituency MSP for Falkirk East, I note that Forth Valley college will have a particularly important role in supporting Grangemouth to meet the challenges of the future.

Of course, there are challenges to be faced, not least in funding but in other areas, too. The world is changing so fast that the most successful economies are fleet of foot and are able to keep pace with technology and innovation. Furthermore, individuals are best equipped to cope with change where they have been able to maximise their development opportunities.

On a point of agreement, I have spoken in the past of the Cumberford-Little report, which advocated a move from a focus on competence to one on excellence to meet the needs of modern economies. I continue to agree strongly with that, and I consider it an area where further progress can be made.

I welcome today’s debate on colleges, but it is a somewhat lazy motion presented by the Tories, who seem blind to all the problems that Tory policies in the UK have created in recent years.

Let us support our colleges and ditch the Tories.

Oh, I am sorry—I did not see that the member was allowing me to intervene. I greatly appreciate it.

I was merely going to make the point that I, too, am greatly in favour of fiscal flexibility, in particular around capital expenditure, end-year flexibility and consulting heavily with the Scottish Fiscal Commission. Why does the member want that for colleges and not for his own Government?

I start by declaring an interest in that, a few years ago, I was part of a research study that contributed towards the eventual creation of UHI Shetland.

From the outset of being an MSP, I forged a close relationship with Forth Valley College. I have also spoken at events at City of Glasgow College. I can see that the huge investment in both colleges in recent years has enabled them to create world-standard learning environments, and they are not alone in that in Scotland.

Like many members in the chamber, I wish that the financial situation was different and that we could simply turn on a tap to invest more in Scotland’s colleges. However, thanks to the Tories, our capital budget has been cut, and we have to acknowledge that Brexit, among other Tory insanities, has created real problems for the education sector.

Let me consider Forth Valley College. It is Scotland’s first regional college, with state-of-the-art campuses across the central belt in Alloa, Falkirk and Stirling. It would not have had those state-of-the-art facilities without the support of the SNP Government. It welcomes 13,500 students per academic session, with 94 per cent of its learners progressing to further studies or employment. Critically, college funding nowadays is based on establishing outcome agreements with the Scottish Funding Council. Again, that is thanks to SNP Government reforms. It supports identification of the real economic and skills needs of the region that it serves and contributes to the college’s strategic, education, training and lifelong learning work.

You have made it very clear that you are accountable for only those areas for which you are accountable. However, I wonder whether I can press you, with regard to some of the evidence that is emerging today and from our previous evidence session, to cascade throughout the entire body of the civil service the need for the processes for the devising of framework bills to be consistent and rigorous.

I say that because we are seeing an emerging pattern that the committee has been driven to write about. I myself have raised the issue in the chamber. That is more in relation to framework bills. I appreciate that you are accountable only for what you are accountable for. However, in your capacity as a cabinet secretary, it would be helpful if you could you see your way to raising that matter generally.

It is, because it has to be financed.

You have neatly rounded it back to what I know you are very passionate about. If other people want to come in, I am trying to get your sense of where we go from here, because we could end up with commissioners for everything.

I will pose my question to Adam Stachura, but I suspect that other witnesses might want to come in. You made some very powerful arguments, as you do in championing the work that you do, but those powerful arguments surely can be applied to a multitude of concerns.

We have considerable concerns across all of society, so what counter-arguments would you posit as to why there should not be commissioners for other areas that are of similar concern? Some potential commissioners have been suggested, but they are the tip of the iceberg, considering the issues and challenges that we have. What would be the tipping point be before we get somebody advocating for a commissioner for making pâté out of crabs’ eyelashes? I am being a bit facetious, but you get the point that I am making. What are the counter-arguments, and what is the tipping point before it becomes a completely crowded landscape? What the heck is the Parliament—whether it is the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body or MSPs—not doing?

Good morning. In relation to the financial memorandum for the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, which my colleague Michael Marra brought up, I can confirm that we were brought back an updated FM, which the committee had the chance to scrutinise. Given that, in that case, there was no reverting back to the process that is set out in standing orders, and it was deemed both appropriate and necessary to update the FM, why do you not simply agree to do likewise, and then we would all be happy?

I fully accept what you say about the scale of the numbers. A multitude of financial memorandums come before the convener, and the tendency is to pick a sample of those. However, in general terms, this committee has now got its teeth into the rigour around framework bills and, arguably, it is that, as much as anything else, that we are testing here.

The committee looks forward to hearing back from you; I certainly do, because that would be helpful. Although I accept what you say about the pay claim—we understand that—that would come within the margins of uncertainty.

In your replies, you have articulated a compelling case for increased scrutiny on your part with regard to revised costs, so I would find it surprising from the point of view of rigour and good practice in this place if that same respectful position were not adopted with regard to the finance committee, which is, after all, a specialist in this area. The issue for the committee is about good practice and rigour in the face of chronic funding constraints on the public purse.

I heard that very clearly.