Since 2012-13, the college sector budget has increased by £168 million.

The latest figures for 2021-22 have running costs of £675,000 for the Glasgow Colleges Regional Board. Mr Doris and the committee members who were here previously will be aware that the Government is considering options for the future governance of the Glasgow college region following the appraisals exercise that was done. I am aware of Mr Doris’s views on that and of the views of others.

Any decision that I take will be subject to a 12-week public consultation, and I hope that we will be in a position to take the decision and begin the process relatively soon.

I can do that once the figures are available.

A number of flexibilities were delivered for this year. I can go into some detail on those if you wish, convener. They included changes to guidance that will enable colleges to deliver an optimal balance of full-time and part-time provision. The minimum credit target has been reduced by at least 10 per cent. Colleges that underdeliver on credit targets will still be allowed to keep 20 per cent of the funding for those credits. Backlog maintenance and lifecycle maintenance have been rolled into one funding allocation as opposed to our providing separate allocations for each, which will allow colleges to determine the most appropriate split between the two uses. That is what has been done thus far. I am keen to explore what we can do with colleges quickly and for us then to consider what we might be able to do beyond that.

To be clear, last week when we met the colleges, they did not come with a list of asks. However, late last year they produced a list of suggestions, some of which were acted upon at the time while others were not. We have asked them to come back to us with an updated list of suggestions.

Sitting alongside that, I have tasked officials with looking into ideas that I have that might be useful to colleges. I should be clear that those cover the resource area of the budget and also capital. I am very much alive to the fact that the colleges have net zero targets to meet. We are all aware of the ageing nature of some of the college estate. We are looking at what it might be possible to do in that space.

Convener, you will appreciate that I do not want to break confidences here. We have to work through those matters with the colleges, but once we have reached agreement I will be more than happy to write to the committee about what we are doing.

Yes. Perhaps it would be useful if I were to explain that the initial money was there to support what was termed “strategic change”. There were initial conversations taking place between the SFC and both sectors. Some areas that were being considered were: supporting institutional transformational planning; helping institutions to collaborate to deliver their provision; a national colleges estates assessment; and the development of a student record system. Those were some of the things that were under discussion and that was what the money was being directed towards; it was not simply a way of providing extra funds for the sake of it—it had a specific purpose.

I am not aware of any colleges or universities that require specific assistance. It is important to recognise that these moneys were for transition purposes and not part of the core teaching funding settlement.

I am reluctant to get into some of the specifics of what we discussed with the colleges and universities, out of courtesy to them. However, there is a joint recognition of some the challenges that they face and, particularly in the case of colleges, there is a commitment to work together to try to find the additional flexibilities that colleges might want, as discussed in the committee report. Conversations are going on in that space. I am sure that the committee will wish to explore that further.

I would describe the discussions with colleges—notwithstanding the understandable upset that they had—as very constructive. I am confident that we can move forward from here and find a positive way forward. Our conversations with Universities Scotland have been more initial, but the cabinet secretary and I intend to build on those by engaging directly with the principals and chairs in what we hope will be a single gathering.

If Barnett consequentials, as you have put it, were to appear or if the financial situation were to improve, I would say that colleges would be a priority for us. As we move forward, colleges will be at the very heart of what we are going to be doing. I entirely recognise the challenges that colleges are being presented with beyond the £26 million and, from my perspective, they would be a priority if and when an opportunity arose to support them better.

Sorry—I was coughing.

The Erasmus situation—

I go back to what we talked about earlier. If the thrust of your point is that we should be putting more money into the college sector to address that issue, that is fine, but where does that money come from?

We have been very clear that we are in a regrettable financial position and cannot put more money into the colleges. I spoke to EIS-FELA last week and made it clear. If there is no more money available from Government and the colleges are to fund that pay increase—unions are perfectly entitled to look for a fair settlement from their employers—unfortunately, the only way to do that is through job losses and course cuts. I wish that it was not so.