���˿���

I have listened to the session with great interest, and there is no denying the power of your advocacy for disabled people. In general terms, I am hearing a lot of arguments to which I would take a slightly counter view, similar to what I said about EqIAs. In all the various forms of government, there are issues with processes not being undertaken because they are time consuming, expensive and often difficult, particularly where there are competing rights. We have seen that before, and it has proven quite difficult.

To what extent have you considered that although you are operating with the best intent, in reality, you are desperately seeking to plug a gap that is there? If that is the case, why cannot we—all of us in the Parliament—plug that gap without a commissioner?

Again, I hear a very powerful argument and advocacy for that. From my perspective as a woman—I am just playing devil’s advocate—I point out that women have been disproportionately discriminated against for thousands of years. With each gain that we make, it feels as though we slip back—if you look at the pay differentials, for example. Even women’s rights has been a matter of discussion and dispute in the past few years. Should I not therefore be thundering out and making an argument for a women’s commissioner? I am saying that about women, and there are a multitude of other groups, so you would end up with a Parliament that is run by commissioners rather than by the democratically elected people.

Good morning. I am making a late entry.

I will pick up on that theme. Councils will do their equality impact assessment for exactly that sort of thing, so does what you outline not simply suggest that existing functions and processes are not necessarily being followed properly rather that make a genuine argument for a commissioner?

I have a brief top-up comment that follows on from my colleague Ben Macpherson’s fair point about the process of allocation. It might well be worth exploring that issue further, but I would be very surprised if it were otherwise. If the Scottish Government were mandated to flow the consequentials through in exactly the same format, that is exactly what it would have to do; after all, it would be a legal requirement. However, given that this is the education committee, there might well be a misunderstanding about how the financials flow through, the process itself and the point at which money arrives with the Scottish Government. It might be worth exploring that.

That point about gearing and lending to English universities is very well made, and I understand it clearly. Is part of the risk for them that, if they have taken on lending against fixed assets on a commercial basis, the lending institutions could pull in loans, as we have seen in other areas? I take it that that is what you are alluding to—as well as the cash-flow issue, there is the cash-out day idea.

I will move on to my next question. We have talked a lot about finances, and I hear and understand your warnings about the provision in the light of that situation. In both your sectors, what additional support—from both the Scottish Government and the Funding Council—would you ideally like to have at this time? I know that everybody will say, “Well, we want more money.” However, if we imagine that that is not possible given the prevailing fiscal climate, what additional support would you ideally like to have?

I note with interest that, with that framing around flexibility, transparency and predictability, you are talking in business terms, because that is exactly what businesses would look for.

Shona, do you concur with that in relation to the college sector? As ever with these things, we have arrived at a place without looking back, and people will say, “We would not necessarily have chosen to start from here.” Is that a useful framing for you? I would appreciate your insights.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us. I want to follow up on what was a slightly technical discussion earlier with Professor Iain Gillespie. The framing was that some people have said that institutions in Scotland are at risk of failure. My colleague Willie Rennie and I asked Professor Gillespie a number of questions, and he explained that he thought that—this is in my words—the probability of that was low because of the prudent nature of their gearing or debt to fee income ratio, which is set to 30 per cent.

My first question is a quick one. Is that limit set by you, or is it in the universities’ articles of association? Why is there such a prudent regime in Scotland compared with what is happening with universities in the rest of the UK?

I am labouring the point because, until the issue came up this morning, I had heard a narrative that was about the UK university sector. If you look at the question from a financial perspective and consider Scotland’s level of average gearing, which I did after the first session, the risk in Scotland is utterly and fundamentally different from that in the rest of the UK. It is therefore not true to say that the risks to institutions in Scotland are the same.

Thank you for clarifying the role of university courts. Does the Scottish Funding Council set fiscal rules for colleges in respect of the attitude to debt and deficit? I want to understand that point, too.

That leads to my next question, which is on what I would term fiscal flexibilities for colleges. We have heard a lot of talk about our being stuck in a trap as more money is needed at a time when we know that the wider financial environment is challenging. What is your thinking in relation to fiscal flexibilities, particularly for colleges, especially given that they are public sector bodies? Are you discussing and considering those issues?