���˿���

There is a future pressure there.

I can answer that. For 2023-24, the SFC administration budget is £7.784 million, which is comprised of £7.634 million resource and £0.15 million non-cash.

Mr Doris—

Our universities are in the fortunate position, which colleges are not, of holding reserves. That said, some universities are less well placed than others, and we are very much alive to that. However, no colleges have indicated to us that they are in a parlous state, as such. Were they to do so, we would clearly engage with them on that.

I go back to my earlier point about the substantial exercise that is under way to identify how we can better support the colleges through existing budgets. One of the things that I have found in my seven weeks in post is that the landscape is very congested with regard to who does what and how the moneys flow across the entire skills sector. I firmly believe that all of that can be rationalised to good effect to ensure that, as has been mentioned, more of the moneys are available for the front line. That is part of what we are looking at just now. We want to ensure that the maximum amount of moneys are going to the front line to deliver for learners—we are committed to looking at that.

The Erasmus situation—

Sorry—I was coughing.

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.

Do you mean in the college sector?

The international strategy is being worked on. It is coming. The purpose and principles statement is pending. I am keen to see a bit more meat on the bones of that than there was initially. That is an element of the delay on that.

However, we have a number of things coming forward in a fairly concise period. We want to get the choreography of those right, not to manage it but to give universities, colleges and the committee the opportunity to consider matters in the round. The Withers review is also coming. The cabinet secretary and I are considering the timings of all of that in as much detail as possible in order to allow the two sectors to respond and the committee, Parliament and wider stakeholders to take a view. Our intention is to have extensive consultation with people on the back of that—I mean face-to-face consultation with the colleges and universities—to get good feedback on where we need to take all that work.

We are trying to take swift action, but we are also planning for the longer term to provide stability across all the sectors. We also want to have, across the skills and education landscape, a coherent narrative and a clear direction. In its work, the committee rightly indicated that colleges needed a clear steer on what their purpose is. I totally agree with that. That is what we are looking to do. They want it and we want to give them it.

The question is where the colleges fit into the overall landscape. I happen to think that this will be a key part of what we do as we move forward. However, at the moment, the colleges are doing so much and going in so many different directions—indeed, some are operating differently—and we need to make things much more coherent. We also need to declutter the landscape, because it is far too complex. I think that we can do that in the short to medium term, to make things a lot easier for people to progress.

I recognise that that is a bit of a waffly answer, but you will have got the thrust of what I am saying. I commit to keeping the committee as up to date as possible, with regular information.

I will answer the question in as much detail as I can. Accommodation charge increases of such a size are concerning. I guess that the University of St Andrews would say that it is also providing £24 million in bursaries for poorer students. I have no doubt that it would rebut your point.

You are right about the situation at the two universities, which I have raised informally with them and will raise formally. I want to understand the position, although justifying such charges is a matter for them.

It is easy to look at reserves, as at underspends, and say, “Wow—that’s a lot of money.” If a body has that money and it is a rainy day, why is it not being spent? However, we must recognise—I certainly recognise—that it is reasonable to assume that institutions will retain reserves that are the equivalent of three to six months of their expenditure. We need to be a bit careful about how reserves are viewed, especially if they are not cash reserves that can be readily drawn down.

There is a balance to be struck, but I take your point about accommodation charges. I think that I have had correspondence from you or one of your colleagues about that, which I will respond to.