Chamber and committees

I have a general comment, although it might be unfair to Mr Beattie. My last line of questioning was quite important because, before that, although I was getting a picture of a powerful, dynamic and growing industry in Scotland and the UK, which is good news, I was a little unclear about the benefit to Parliament of having the CPG—I could see the benefit for the sector, of course—other than in just helping MSPs to be informed. However, by the end of that exchange, Mr Beattie had outlined some of that.

The Parliament is not very good at auditing whether cross-party groups actually fulfil their aspirations. That observation is not specific to this proposed cross-party group, but it feeds into the discussion that we will have later about cross-party groups more generally, so I want to put that on the record. The cross-party group that we have just discussed had some significant ambition, but, with all cross-party groups, we might have to look a little more carefully at whether they fulfil what they say that they want to achieve when they appear before this committee to seek recognition.

I will follow that up a little. If this group is accepted, it will be the eighth cross-party group of which you are a member. I convene two cross-party groups that have lots of really good purposes. One is that they can connect a sector in a way in which it would not otherwise be connected. Do you feel that the space industry is already well connected as a sector and that it already has good links with government at all levels, whether that is local authorities, the Scottish Government or the UK Government? I ask that question because you mentioned that it would be a “serious deficiency” if we did not have this cross-party group and that, where problems emerge, the group could be a vehicle for tackling some of them. Can you give an example of what those problems are, or is everything tickety-boo at the moment? What are the issues?

I will be brief, convener. Mr Rennie was, reasonably, asking about the timescale for the reforms of the qualifications framework, and I understand why. However, I urge you to get the reforms right rather than rush them to meet an artificial deadline.

In making that request, I note that curriculum for excellence was first floated by the last Scottish Executive in 2002 but still had not been implemented when the current Scottish Government came in in 2007. It took until 2010 to implement CFE and until 2014 to get the related qualifications in place. Therefore, I make this appeal to the cabinet secretary: let us get this right for Scottish school children, and let us not rush things. Whatever we implement, we will have to live with it for decades to come. Let us get it right and let us not have artificial deadlines.

We are doing budget scrutiny. Before Christmas, I met the principal of Glasgow Kelvin College to look at the really challenging realities of the then budget allocation for the college sector. I also met the Educational Institute of Scotland locally. I am in no doubt that those absolute challenges will mean fewer staff and fewer classes. I grant that those meetings took place before the welcome addition of £26 million to the budget, which provides a small real-terms uplift, but I understand that there will still be fewer staff and fewer classes, which will be reflected across the sector.

I do not have a pot of cash to make things better, but we must be realistic about the reality out there. Has any analysis been done of the impact on the sector of the position before and after the £26 million was allocated?

I am not sure whether I know precisely how the £26 million will be used as the cash flows through to colleges. It would definitely help if you could provide additional information to the committee, even if that is not available today.

You mentioned the resource spending review. Colleges were taking decisions predicated on a five-year flat-cash settlement at 2022-23 prices all the way through to 2026-27. For 2023-24, we know that the settlement is not flat cash, because an additional £26 million has been provided.

When will the college sector get a revised idea of what finances will look like on a rolling basis for five years henceforth? Colleges are predicating decisions on a five-year expenditure basis. Things such as course changes and alterations in staff provision, whether through redundancies or recruitment, have a lead-in time because they are detailed matters.

Will you say more about how the £26 million will change the next five years under the resource spending review? Can colleges think that, for example, there is a new baseline?

College principals would welcome early clarity on some of that, because they are making business plans with five-year consequences now.

I welcome the additional cash for higher education, and I do not take any pleasure in saying that it was less than that for colleges. It was a 2.5 per cent cash increase for higher education but a 3.8 per cent one for colleges. However, I have mentioned before at the committee that colleges sometimes seem a poor relation to universities in terms of the reimbursement rates that they get for full-time equivalent courses. The figures that we have are that, for colleges, the rate is £5,054 and, for universities, it is £7,558.

I wonder whether that differential between the increases for colleges and universities might be the start of a convergence over a long period to bring the fees more into line. I am conscious that the Scottish Funding Council said that it had to better understand why that difference existed and that there would be different reimbursement rates for different courses. I would like more information on that.

Just in case I do not get back in—

It is really important, though, convener.

We should note that, in 2017-18, 26 per cent of university entrants came through a further education route, as did 40 per cent of undergraduates from the 20 per cent most deprived areas under the Scottish index of multiple deprivation who started university in the past year. What we invest in colleges matters for our universities; so, surely, moving towards parity of funding is incredibly important.

Deputy First Minister, I welcome what you said in your answers to Graeme Dey and the deputy convener that we have gone from 26 applications being considered each month to 66, and that figure might go up with the additional caseworkers. I hate the expression “throughput” but that is what it is, if you like. However, the individual experience is the length of wait for each individual, so what is the average length of time that someone has to wait to have a determination made, and what do you anticipate the average length of wait will become as the new caseworkers get up to speed? That will allow us to monitor the individual experience rather the number of cases going through the system, and that would be helpful to the committee.

I accept all of that, Deputy First Minister, because there are such individualised cases. Is there any way in which that could be monitored? I accept that each individual case has to be looked at empathetically and that applications can be at different stages when they are made, but it would still be good to have some form of monitoring of the efficacy of the case handling system for those individuals as they go through the process. I know that raw data might not be relevant, but will you keep that under scrutiny, anyway?

I have a particular interest in this cross-party group—that does not always happen when members come here to seek approval for CPGs—because it makes me think about the most obvious ice sports club in Glasgow: the Glasgow Clan. I have not yet been able to go and see it, which is probably my loss. Ahead of today’s meeting, I thought I would check what it is doing, and I saw that it has “kids for a quid” offers to encourage young people to watch the sport. Anyone who has visited Braehead cannot help but be enthused by the number of families who go to see ice hockey as a spectator sport. It is a really family-friendly occasion.

This proposal for a cross-party group has got me thinking about the link between spectator sports, entertainment and participation. I am wondering whether that is something that the group might consider, as we often talk about sporting pathways, and the first way to get young people involved is to get them watching a real spectacle, because they then want a go themselves.

I am conscious that the aims of the proposed cross-party group include debating the accessibility of existing infrastructure and promoting existing clubs. I would imagine that there are geographical inequalities in relation to some of the assets, so I wonder about the relationship between growing the spectator sport, the sporting pathways for participation and affordability. I do not expect to get answers on that from you, Mr Kerr, but I am interested in that connectivity, and the proposal has made me think about the situation in north Glasgow in particular. I know that lots of people I represent there go to watch Glasgow Clan, but I have never asked myself the question: what is the sporting pathway there for young people? Is that something that the cross-party group might investigate?