���˿���

I will bring in Magdalene Boyd to answer that question.

You are asking what additional pressure there will be. We estimate the numbers to be somewhere between 36 and 76. To put that in perspective, we are looking at pressure of somewhere between 0.03 and 0.06 per cent.

It is impossible to answer that, but we are always reviewing how we provide support. There are on-going processes that will follow from the regulations, so we will continue to look at the situation. Clearly, if there was a substantial increase, that would have to be taken on board.

Thank you for the opportunity to address you today regarding the amending regulations that are before you.

As I set out in my letter of 31 May, following a judicial review last year, the Court of Session declared that the long residence provisions in our education fees and student support regulations were unlawful.

Those provisions were originally brought in following a judicial review of the position in England by the United Kingdom Supreme Court, and with a view to providing students who had not been born in the United Kingdom and who did not have indefinite leave to remain, with the opportunity to access financial support when proceeding into further and higher education. Although the lengthy timescales associated with the long residence provisions drew criticism from the court, the position of offering full support to those who live in Scotland and regard it as their home, and who are therefore more likely to stay here after their studies and contribute to society, is a sound one.

At the conclusion of the judicial review proceedings, ministers committed to introducing amending regulations for the start of the 2023-24 academic year, to ensure that students who had made Scotland their home, or who resided in the country and wished to study in further or higher education, had parity of access to support with their school peers.

The Scottish Government launched a public consultation on the proposals in January 2023 and undertook stakeholder engagement, all of which helped to shape the proposals that are before the committee today.

The proposals expand the pool of students from a range of immigration statuses who can now be deemed as being Scotland-domiciled. That means that, for the purposes of being assessed for a home fee place with access to tuition fees and, in some instances, access to student bursaries and/or loans, all students—other than those from exempted groups—must now meet the same length of residence in the UK, which is three years, to access that support. That sets all potential students who have a lawful basis for residing in the UK or Scotland and who wish to proceed into further and higher education on a level footing with their school peers—bar some noted exceptions.

If the amending regulations were to be annulled, the substantive regulations would revert to our previous position on long residence, which would undoubtedly cause deep upset for many members of our communities who have made Scotland their home and wish to pursue further and higher education but would no longer be able to do so.

I look forward to discussing the regulations further and have my two most well-versed officials with me to assist with proceedings.

That is not captured by the regulations.

No, because we have SAAS as a fallback.

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.

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.

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.

It is a fact. If we, collectively as a Parliament, welcome that, we have to recognise that if we spend money in that area, there will not be money for something else. That is the reality of Government. I am afraid that we cannot simply say that there is more money for this and more money for that, whether it be for education or something else, without consequences. Unfortunately, these are the consequences.