Hansard

Along with many in the university sector and many public figures such as Lord Sutherland and Sir Andrew Cubie, the Scottish Conservatives have persistently argued that free higher education is unsustainable. We maintain that position, notwithstanding the claims from the Scottish Government that it will plug the funding gap for the next three years. At what price to our colleges? The Scottish Government cannot get away from the fact that 1,000 staff have been shed in the FE sector so far this year, the school college partnership work has been significantly reduced and, despite claims to the contrary, the number of learners has decreased.

The Scottish Government can no longer claim that there cannot be greater flexibility in its budget decisions about HE and FE. Until budget year 2010-11, the Scottish Government had separate budget lines for capital expenditure for the two sectors but for budget years beyond that the Scottish funding council has one pot for both sectors, so the Scottish Government can no longer claim that its hands are so tied. There is new scope for flexibility and therefore there should be much greater scope for a more equitable share between the two sectors.

I do not for a minute take issue with the desire of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council to examine whether HE and FE are delivering best value for money. I do not doubt for a minute that some rationalisation is necessary—even some mergers in the future—but let us hope that the handling of that is not condensed into a six-week period like it was in the disgraceful situation at Abertay and Dundee, tellingly described by Lord Sutherland at the Education and Culture Committee on Tuesday as a “merger by fax”. Reform is essential, but so is the continuing autonomy of the sector and so is colleges’ desire to play an equal part in any tripartite discussions that must take place between the Scottish Government, the Scottish funding council and the colleges themselves. Discussions about the future structure of our colleges and universities will be extremely important and they must include the fullest possible consultation with all parties.

I will now concentrate on the priorities of the Scottish Government. It has made it very plain that there is to be a much greater focus on the provision of opportunities for 16 to 24-year-olds and especially those in the 16 to 19 age group. It is a laudable ambition; but why then cut colleges’ resources? By definition, they will be expected to play a key role in this initiative, which will make additional demands on the college sector. As I understand the Scottish Government’s proposals, regionalisation is at the heart of the post-16 programme and it is predicted that there will be some savings as a result. However, I cannot see how any of those savings can possibly occur in a sufficiently short timescale to avoid serious pressures on colleges as they try to develop post-16 arrangements. Indeed, if possible mergers were to be part of restructuring, it is possible that costs could increase rather than decrease in the short term. The Scottish Government should be aware that there is a lack of evidence to suggest that significant savings can be made in the short term.

Let us not forget that there are many other student groups at college: part-time students, mature students and a minority of apprentices, who are all an essential part of the work of colleges and essential to ensuring that we have a mobile and flexible workforce across the economy. How will they fare if more demands to help with prioritising the 16 to 19 reform are laid on colleges at the same time as crippling budget cuts? What will happen to the provision of HE places—28 per cent of the total HE provision—especially for students from disadvantaged areas? Does that really sit well with the principles that underpin this Government’s priorities? I do not think so.

The Scottish Government’s economic strategy commits to maintaining bursary support to help young people to remain engaged in college and training. It is right to ask the Government whether it can confirm that student support in colleges will be maintained in real terms over the course of the spending review period. Bursary support is crucial to many students who would not otherwise be able to access further or higher education and it is also crucial to maintain a diverse student intake. We need a cast-iron assurance that bursary support will be maintained and that there will be no prospect of increasing inequality between the level of support for FE and for HE students.

I return to where I began by praising the outstanding work that has been undertaken by the college sector over recent years. Colleges have coped admirably with the challenges put upon them and they are undoubtedly a hugely important part of the improvements in post-school education. They should be congratulated rather than punished by the Government, which has muddled its priorities and ended up with a total lack of coherence in FE and HE policy.

It is incumbent on us all to heed the warnings in formal communications from Scotland’s Colleges about what could happen as a result of the spending review. The organisation fears further cuts. In the worst case that some predict, which is a cut by a fifth in the total for colleges, colleges fear cuts in student places or—if places can be maintained—cuts in teaching time. The colleges are also fearful about whether they will be able to maintain the college estate.

As I said, the college sector has made outstanding progress in recent years, but there is considerable doubt about whether it will emerge as anything other than weaker. That would be hugely detrimental to Scotland and to our economic potential.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the profound concern expressed by Scotland’s Colleges that last week’s Spending Review has severely damaged the ability of colleges to maintain student places and staffing levels, and their ability to deliver quality education across all areas of the further education sector; notes that the core funding cuts to colleges of 13.5% could result in a real-terms cut of over 20% if student support is maintained at a flat-cash level; believes that this is a direct consequence of the Scottish Government’s refusal to allow additional private sources of finance in the higher education sector thereby putting additional financial strain on every other area of education spending, and calls on the Scottish Government to explain why, in light of the findings of the post-16 review, it has severely cut back on the highly successful school/college partnerships that provide enhanced vocational opportunities for young people.

10:35