���˿���

Amendment 48 requires a new funding model for colleges to be set out within one year of the act being given royal assent. That is absolutely fundamental, and it is one of the reasons why we could not support the bill at stage 1. We felt that the movement and the disruption—

Will the minister give way?

Amendment 84 says that

“Where the framework relates to a foundation apprenticeship”

it must

“deliver industry-recognised qualifications”,

including

“structured, externally supervised work-based learning”

and must

“be co-designed with employers”.

In a similar vein to the amendments from my colleague Willie Rennie in the previous group, the intention is to ensure that industry and employers can recognise the skills that have been learned during and through foundation apprenticeships. That is why I have lodged amendment 84.

I understand the concerns about definition and about specifying foundation apprenticeships in the bill—I do not share them, but I understand them. I hope, though, that members will at least consider that foundation apprenticeships should be delivered with industry-recognised qualifications as part of the process, include

“structured, externally supervised work-based learning”

and

“be co-designed with employers”.

If those principles are agreeable to members, I hope that they will support amendment 84.

I am looking at the wording of amendment 66. It says, specifically, that a fundable body should

“take reasonable steps to inform and consult the persons mentioned in subsection (2) before implementing any decision that could significantly impact”

provision for learners, levels of staffing or financial sustainability.

If the situation were time limited in the way that the member has described—if it were an emergency, for example, where the fundable body had to close a building in order to look to the safety of both learners and staff—the amendment would provide for that flexibility and reasonableness. It is certainly not my intention that any fundable body be prevented from taking decisions such as those that will be time limited rather than those that could have a longer-term impact on funders and learners. I hope that the words “reasonable” and “significantly” give flexibility to the amendment.

Amendment 67 is about appointing chairs and would require that they have certain skills. The skills that are highlighted are covered the Gillies report, although I recognise that other skills are needed and that it is crucial to take account of communities, class background and so on. The amendment specifically highlights some of the skills that I think could have been beneficial in certain situations that have come to light in recent months and years—including in Dundee—and might have helped to avoid some of the situations that we have seen. That is why I have specifically drawn them out.

Amendment 68 would require that

“the governing body of the fundable body must have due regard to the views of any members representing students and staff”,

that those members receive

“the same documentation as other members of the governing body”

and that they are

“protected from detriment or exclusion for raising concerns in good faith.”

That would include

“giving members representing students and staff a reasonable opportunity to present their views ... documenting the views of such members”

and

“documenting how the governing body responded to any such views presented, and where relevant, the reasons for not aligning with the views of members representing students and staff.“

Trade unions have told us that their members and students associations do not always feel that they have parity with other members on governing bodies. Given the value that trade unions and organisations that represent students can bring to decisions that will fundamentally affect learning in any fundable body, it is incredibly important that such parity exists. Not to have that parity or give due regard to the views of students and staff in such forums brings up the question of whether their representation on those boards is tokenistic. It is important that they be there and that due regard be given to what they say at the time.

My amendments in this group all seek to strengthen governance, decision making and the input that staff and students of institutions have—not to create overburdensome responsibilities on institutions but, rather, to ensure that decisions benefit from the value and expertise that everyone who is affected by them on the governing body will have.

We know, for example, from decisions that have been made without proper engagement with trade unions that even some small concerns could have been resolved if trade unions had been properly engaged and given time to negotiate or to understand what was being put in front of them. Trade unions sometimes attend meetings almost in the dark, without access to the papers that would give them the information to provide an input.

To properly engage with trade unions is not only a matter of good governance—although that is important, too—but about valuing the expertise of everyone around the table, not only that of the chairs and members who represent other interests. Although the latter are crucial, it is important to ensure that any ideas and experience can be drawn on to benefit the institutions.

I will mention other members’ amendments in this group. I have already spoken to Ross Greer’s amendment 51 on the management agents. I genuinely understand why Ross Greer has lodged amendment 54, on the election to the bodies, but I worry slightly about the capacity of institutions to bring forward elections. I also worry about getting people to stand for election. We all understand the great responsibility and privilege that comes with that, and it can be difficult. I would not want institutions to be in a situation in which they could not appoint members to positions because of a lack of interest. Those are my slight concerns about amendment 54.

I support amendment 62, although it is important to consider what it means for the funding of student associations to be “adequate”. I got into politics through student associations, so I understand their value. We have to do everything we can to support them in providing the incredible experience and opportunity for students to supplement the formal learning in an institution with the learning that we all gain from representing others and being at decision-making tables, as is often the case for people who represent students in associations.

I understand why Maggie Chapman lodged amendments 58 and 60. I worry slightly about the detail concerning ONS and the classification of universities. If the amendments put the ONS classification of universities at risk, I cannot support them. Those are my concerns.

Will the minister take a further intervention?

I thank the minister for his patience. If the bill is going to go to stage 3, I want to be absolutely clear on the point around what is outwith legislative competence and the difference between that and a grant offer, so that we all know where we stand. The drafting of Ross Greer’s amendments makes it quite clear that the issue is about the grant offer. For example, amendment 61D mentions the council’s “making a payment” under various sections, and the

“body receiving such a payment”.

So, the issue is about grant funding; it does not appear to be about employment law.

I appreciate the minister’s point. I do intend to support amendments 6 and 7, but does the minister recognise that our saying that we accept them at this point, in the absence of any other option, is not a reason for him not to engage and not lodge an amendment to the bill at stage 3 that adds in those who represent trade unions and learners?

No problem at all, convener.

Amendment 48 requires the Government to set out a new funding model for colleges. The proposal has been discussed for a number of years now, with colleges crying out for clear direction and for flexibilities in the funding model—indeed, for a new funding model altogether.

We have heard about the tripartite group that has been set up, and some systems and flexibilities have been offered to colleges, but, in the evidence that the committee has heard, that Audit Scotland has collected and that the Scottish Funding Council report has highlighted, those flexibilities have not put colleges on the stable footing necessary for them to continue as the skills engines of our regions and, indeed, the opportunity centres for young people and career switchers.

For any system to work in the way that the Government has envisaged, we absolutely have to sort out the crisis facing Scotland’s colleges before we can expect them to deliver any structural change—that is, change of the sort that the bill sets out. There has been concern about diversion from the front line, diversion from purpose and principle, and diversion from addressing the real skills needs across the country.

Amendment 48 seeks to make it clear that such diversion cannot continue beyond a year following royal assent, should the bill pass at stage 3. It would be perfectly reasonable to expect the Government to deliver the promised funding model within 12 months of the bill’s royal assent, if it were to pass.

I thank the minister for setting out his thoughts and concerns. I agree that the funding model must be led by the sector—indeed, the sector is doing everything that it can to lead the way and it has been looking to the Government to pick up the mantle on that, which I do not think has happened yet.

I understand the minister’s support for Miles Briggs’s amendment 49; Labour members will support that amendment, too, as it is important. However, amendment 48 gives a slightly broader view of the model that could be considered, and I think that both amendments are worthy of support from the committee. My amendment 48 sets out the need for a review of funding models in the round—that could include the credit-based system, but there are other ways of funding. We have heard about colleges looking for funding—or, more accurately, having to chase funding—from different sources. The Government decides to create new strategies, plans or ideas that have skills attached to them, and colleges then have to try to chase funding to deliver some of the skills. That delivers neither the longevity nor the sense of purpose or direction that colleges need; instead, it leaves them chasing smaller pots of funding.

Therefore, there is an argument to be made for supporting both amendments, as, together, they look at both the credit-based funding model and the wider funding models that colleges sit within, and cover the question of how colleges can deliver the skills to meet all the Government’s economic strategies, public sector priorities and so on.

I think that both amendments should get the committee’s support, and I will press amendment 48.

We have probably covered it significantly, so, with that, I will close.