Chamber and committees

I will certainly do my best. I admire Mr Doris’s methodology of asking his supplementaries in one question.

There are a few things at play there, and I will take the last point first. I do not think that it is unfair—it is certainly not meant to be—to ask the board to consider various propositions in order to inform SFC’s considerations of what it might recommend to me. To be clear, the regional boards will not make any specific decision on what the structure might be, but it is appropriate that they are asked to consider various issues and to be involved in any process.

On the fundamental question—to which we have returned a number of times—of guarantees for the colleges in Glasgow, all that I can guarantee is that I am not driving any particular process of merger in the city of Glasgow, and I am not aware of there being such a process under way at all. Any proposition would need to emerge from the institutions themselves. We can look at what has happened in other parts of the country—for example, in the Highlands and Islands, where colleges themselves are in dialogue. Neither I nor the SFC made that request; we want to empower institutions to make decisions for themselves. I can certainly give Mr Doris the reassurance that I am not going to drive that particular agenda.

However, it is important—and I hope that you would agree that it is not unreasonable—to have a forum in which the three colleges in Glasgow can have dialogue. We need to maximise provision across the city as a whole, reduce duplication and, if there are any gaps in provision, work through them to make sure that they are filled between the three colleges. Trying to get that balance right is, of course, appropriate.

The SFC is considering what the structure might look like in Glasgow, and it will make a recommendation to me. That is appropriate, because—frankly and candidly—we have only three multicollege regions. One of those is based on its also being a university institution, so I think that people understand why that is in place. The other two are Lanarkshire and Glasgow, and it is appropriate to consider whether that is still required.

Again, if Mr Marra wants us to invest more in the area, and if he comes forward with suggestions as to where the money can come from, I am more than willing to listen. We are committed to investing—

That is not under active consideration. It is not something that we are specifically looking at. Various things can be considered as we move forward, but that is not something that I envisage us looking at, because it would immediately embed an additional layer of complexity and unintended consequences. I hope that that provides some reassurance.

You asked me to explain what I mean about being cognisant of some of the challenges. I do not know how to explain that any more specifically. I am conscious of, and understand, the challenges. We have seen a very real shock to the international order this year, and that continues to have a wider influence on global affairs. It does not particularly affect this area of life in Scotland, but it demonstrates that events come along and can change things. What I mean by that is that we must work with the sector to recognise that events like that can happen. Where that might have a particular impact on the sector as a whole or, as is more likely, on specific institutions, how do we deal with that? How do we ensure that institutions can continue to undertake their work if such an event comes along?

Regarding a timescale, I am happy to follow that up with the committee and give you some more detail of the work that we are undertaking on strategy.

We are looking at that just now, and it is an inextricable part of the budget process.

We made certain commitments, through our manifesto and through our programme for government, and I am very clear that we need to meet those commitments in the first instance. What we might do beyond that must be informed by our engagement with the sector.

I understand and recognise that the sector sees value in the investment that has been made in mental health counsellors. However, we also have to be informed by the student mental health action plan that we are going to introduce in conjunction with the sector.

We have a student mental health and wellbeing working group, which rightly involves the National Union of Students and other representatives of the sector, to make sure that any decisions that we make are made on an informed basis and that we are responding to what I recognise are significant challenges in terms of the mental wellbeing of Scotland’s student population. It has been an enormously difficult period, through Covid-19 and now with the cost of living crisis, and that will bring its pressures to bear on the student population and their sense of wellbeing. Our strategy is going to be well timed in that regard. How we resource and structure it thereafter is a matter for wider consideration in line with the ordinary budget process that we have in place.

We are actively looking at the matter. The SFC spoke to the committee about it. We cannot magically resolve the issue overnight, but we are looking at it and are determined to resolve it satisfactorily. We are trying to get the balance right, and I have spoken about some of the inherent challenges involved in doing so, but we are looking at the issue, and I hope that the committee welcomes that.

As, I think, Mr Kerr knows fine well, I would be leading the committee astray if I were to say that I would be able to resolve the issue in a month.

I am telling you, if you will let me answer.

I can hear you now.

I cannot hear you, Mr Kerr.

You have raised a few issues there, Mr Kerr. We will actively consider the issue of borrowing. There are some constraints with regard to ONS classification, but if there is something that we can do in that respect, we will certainly consider it.

As for the issue of bureaucracy, that, as I am sure you will agree, can often be a loaded term. It is appropriate to ensure that public resources are accounted for, but I certainly do not want anything to be overly burdensome if such a basis is not required. If there is a specific proposition that will allow us to fulfil our fundamental requirement to account for the public purse, but on a basis that might not be felt to be as burdensome for Colleges Scotland, I am, of course, willing to consider it. However, as I have said, it would require a specific proposition.

With regard to your first question, I was not thinking specifically about apprenticeships. By my estimation and in my view, we have a well-established and pretty successful model for delivering apprentices that derives from Skills Development Scotland’s relationship with the providers that it contracts with. Of course, Colleges Scotland is involved in that, too.

I was thinking more about aspects such as how colleges can respond to the requirements of the existing workforce. An apprentice who is recruited will ordinarily be a new entrant to the workforce or, at the very least, someone for whom an apprenticeship might be their initial experience of work-based learning. In order to respond to the various social and economic imperatives and issues that lie ahead of us, such as demographic change and the climate emergency, we need to upskill existing members of the workforce so that they do not fall out of the labour market, with all the consequential challenges that that might entail.

How can we ensure that colleges are ever more responsive to those requirements? I am thinking of that kind of territory.

I recently undertook a very good visit to Glasgow Kelvin College. Mr Doris will doubtless have some questions for me, and I know that Ms Callaghan has an interest in community learning and development. Can we facilitate more of that type of activity? We are considering all of those things.