Chamber and committees

For those of us who have been calling for that review and who are working with the steering group, it is important that we have had that broad offer put forward. Some of it will be very challenging, but in its next session, Parliament will have to pick up that work in order to make our university sector sustainable. What comes out of that, and ensuring that the unions have, collectively, had their voices heard in the process, is important.

That is all from me, convener.

Ministers expect the plan to be published in autumn, which is quite a long time away for institutions that have been engaging with other financial opportunities. If I remember rightly, Dundee and Angus College engaged with levelling up funding and received around £4.5 million, which is basically half of what the Government is putting forward for the whole capital budget. Those projects are at risk unless Government works with different institutions to progress at more pace opportunities to move those projects forward.

I have raised previously with the minister the mutual investment model, which would help bring more money into the sector than the Government is providing. Has the Government looked with the SFC at other potential opportunities? The college sector waiting for significant capital from the Government will not resolve the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete issue. It needs to be a much wider piece of work, which I do not think the Government has done any work on. I am concerned that any plan is being kicked into autumn, and that it will take years for financial support for institutions to be put in place.

I am sure that the committee would appreciate updates on that.

At least poor old Liz Truss is not getting the blame for this one at the minute.

The cabinet secretary has said that unions have not prioritised the issue. The EIS claims that there has been no progress in recent years and the union says that

“Over the past four years, EIS negotiators have worked tirelessly in their attempts to push both … COSLA and the Scottish Government to make progress on the reduction in class contact time.”

I have listened to what you have said to Willie Rennie, but it does not sound as though it has been a priority for ministers as part of these negotiations and therefore it has not happened. Would that not be a true characterisation of why, having put that pledge to teachers, parents and pupils very high up in your manifesto, we are now at the end of this session of Parliament and it is very unlikely that the pledge is going to be delivered and, depending on manifestos, we do not know where this will go in the next session of Parliament?

I will carry on the questioning on the same issue, because it is important. I welcome the fact that the Government has accepted the Conservative debate, which secured the review, and I genuinely hope that the Government tries to make progress on the issue.

The Morgan review, the remit of which did not include resourcing, and the Scottish Government’s establishment of the multi-agency project board in 2022 have not delivered some of the outcomes that we hoped for. I am increasingly concerned, because when I meet teachers and parents to discuss what is happening in classrooms, I hear that more medical interventions are taking place in schools than ever before. We need to be honest about that.

There is no adult pathway for an assessment for autism or ADHD in Scotland, and there is no longer one for children and young people. A connection does not seem to be being made between what is going on in our schools, where our young people are, and the Government’s health offering, which it has now taken away. I have raised the issue several times, but I have not had any acknowledgement or understanding from the First Minister or ministers that that puts parents and teachers in a really difficult position.

We are saying, “You don’t need a diagnosis—everyone in the classroom will be treated the same way.” Parents then go private for an assessment—I do casework on this every week—but that is not recognised by the school, and it is certainly not recognised by the general practitioner if meds are involved, with the result that continuing care is not provided. I do not know who is responsible for that, because it sits in the mental health portfolio, not education, but there is a complete breakdown in communication between departments, even though we expect schools to do something different for those young people.

I genuinely hope that the review can drag health ministers into this space, because there should be a cross-portfolio opportunity—it does not matter what lanyard people wear—to bring national health service staff into schools to do assessments, one day a week. That is an example of a solution. It seems impossible to get ministers to acknowledge that we have made the system even worse than it was before. I am concerned that child and adolescent mental health services now write people off, rather than embracing a different approach, which is what is needed. There is a lot of cross-party consensus on that, but we are where we are now that that support has been switched off.

Good morning. It is important that the criticism that SPICe has made is taken on board, as it has been difficult to look at what the Government is proposing here. You will have lobbied the finance secretary in relation to the various scenarios that the college sector outlined. How has the figure, which seems to be in the middle of the range of funding that it requested, been arrived at?

Given the conversations about capital that we have had, the situation with regard to infrastructure investment planning is concerning. I am not quite sure what the Government’s vision is for where moneys will be allocated. Dundee and Angus College, which I visited recently, is significantly concerned about its position with regard to reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, and it is not alone in that.

What is the Government’s vision for how colleges can replace buildings? That is becoming a critically important issue, and it is one that we as a committee have raised consistently in our reports. Ministers do not seem to have a vision in that regard. Where will the Government outline its support and the different models that are available, which do not seem to have been progressed at any pace?

The minister mentioned August—

I welcome what the minister said on Forth Valley College. Other institutions would appreciate similar work, so that they can progress their plans.

On the point about the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government confirming plans to reduce the public sector workforce by around 11,000 roles, how many do the ministers expect to lose from education?

Finally, the fact that the LDAN bill has not progressed has been problematic as we try to resolve matters. Likewise, our colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy’s bill could have made a difference in this space.

On Friday, I visited Scottish Autism’s one-stop shop in Kirkcaldy, which is a great resource for Fife members. Many families are now accessing it for advocacy work, which shows where the system is not necessarily working for them and their children.

I hope—maybe the minister can take this away—that, when the short, sharp review is done, health ministers can be involved in the process, because they should be taking on that learning. The review could perhaps look to make some recommendations about national health service staffing and work in schools. In some places, the system is working well, but it depends on the health board and whether it wants to embrace some of the reforms.