���˿���

Okay—I appreciate that. I am looking for something a bit more concrete on reporting, but I take the minister’s point that there are a lot of amendments that relate to reporting and that it would be sensible to tidy up the amendments for stage 3. However, I am not prepared to let the issue drop without a commitment that a reporting amendment will be discussed for stage 3.

I have listened carefully to the minister and I respectfully disagree with him. The amendments are useful; they are about transparency and they would be helpful in fostering understanding and a social contract between people who receive the skills, people who need the skills and people who pay for the skills. That is incredibly important. To say that the amendments are not useful in that regard is disappointing.

On the point about the Government’s inability to determine how much is raised by the skills levy and how much of it is spent in Scotland, I cannot accept that it is beyond the wit of either the UK Government or the Scottish Government to make that happen. It is about the will to make that happen, and I do not think that there is such a will from the Scottish Government, because doing that would be far too transparent for it. Transparency is what the amendments are trying to address, and I do not accept the minister’s response. On that basis, I will press amendment 121.

I listened carefully to the minister, but I do not agree that such matters are best left to be done administratively, because, frankly, they have not been. That is why Daniel Johnson and I seek, through our amendments in this group, to put the provisions into statute.

The Government and the minister speak of intention, but it has not happened. The trade unions have not been involved in the process. The staff are worried about what is happening, where they will be working and how the provision of the service will continue. Leaving it to administrative responsibility is simply not enough. Although I recognise that the Government is not directly the employer here, it is funding the organisation that is the employer on both accounts.

We need to show leadership, but I am afraid that saying that it is best left to an administrative function lacks leadership. On that basis, I will press amendment 124.

Amendment 206 requires the SFC to carry out a review of the act. It states that the review should include the experience of learners of access to information and support in relation to different learner options; the experience of employers who provide work-based learning; the participation, progression and completion outcomes in respect of different socioeconomic groups or other characteristics that the Funding Council reasonably considers to be underrepresented; and any changes in the uptake of fundable further education, higher education, work-based learning and Scottish apprenticeships, broken down by region and sector. That is in order that we can have a real understanding of the impact of the act.

I move amendment 206.

Given the commitment from the Government to look to progress this provision at stage 3, but changing it, I am happy not to press amendment 206.

Amendment 206, by agreement, withdrawn.

Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.

Section 23—Regulation-making powers

Amendment 23 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to.

Section 23, as amended, agreed to.

Section 24—Commencement

Amendments 207 to 209, 211 and 210 not moved.

Section 24 agreed to.

Section 25 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

Amendment 172 in my name states that, if council members’ tenure is extended, the Government must publish a statement of reasons. I have lodged the amendment because the membership of the new boards and the council must be fresh and reflect the talent that is needed. The bill purports to take a different approach to skills, and that should be reflected in the tenure of members on the board.

Amendment 173, in my name, states that the SFC should include on its board students at colleges, universities and someone undertaking an apprenticeship. That, in my view, is essential, given the significant impacts that any bill or legislation in this space could have on students at colleges and universities and those undertaking apprenticeships.

Amendment 174 seeks to add those with capacity in

“research and innovation ... financial due diligence”

and

“workforce planning”

to the council. As the committee has heard—indeed, all of us will have had representations from industry and others on this—it is crucial that the council has that kind of capacity to reflect the changing requirements that the bill will place on it.

Amendment 176 seeks to add accountable officers of colleges and universities to the council. I think that they will be a useful addition, given the council’s role in ensuring that those organisations are held accountable.

Amendment 177 would ensure trade union representation on the council. The University and College Union is keen on the amendment, and I can understand why, given the circumstances being faced by its members across Scotland as we speak.

I am happy to do so.

No, I do not think so. I think that we would be getting the balance absolutely right by putting at the heart of all of this those who either deliver in the sectors or who receive education from the sectors. That is incredibly important.

I support the amendments in Ross Greer’s name. Does he agree that, although he does not set it out in the detail of amendment 179 as I have done in my amendments, his intention is that trade union representatives would be covered by the amendment?

I intend to press—let me get the exact number of the amendment so that I do not get them confused—amendment 172, because I do not accept the minister’s concern about it being too prescriptive about the need to explain, at the very least, why a membership of the council has been extended. In particular, the minister’s comments on the changing requirements around AI, for example, underpin the need to keep checking. That does not suggest that we would check and get rid, but that we would sense-check and make sure that the representation on the council reflects need and demand across the sector. On that basis, I will press amendment 172, but I am prepared to hold the Government’s position to account ahead of stage 3 on the representation on the council in other amendments such as 173, 174, 176 and so on.