���˿���

Professor Miller, would you like to contribute? What do you think about where the university sector will go in the next period and about all the other issues that we have discussed?

I am very pleased. The development of a strategy represents good progress, however we get to that point. That is a good thing. Doing that through the housing to 2040 group is the sensible way to proceed, and I am grateful to Callum Chomczuk, the national director of the Chartered Institute of Housing Scotland, for the tremendous work that he has done in this area. He has made a constructive proposal for dealing with an identified problem.

Importantly, I am also pleased that, in her opening remarks, the cabinet secretary said that she agrees that the private rented sector has an integral role to play in finding a solution to the housing emergency. For those reasons, I seek leave to withdraw amendment 1.

Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 2, 135, 275, 276 and 74 not moved.

Amendment 191 moved—[Maggie Chapman].

Amendments 1 and 2 are designed to require the Scottish Government ministers to publish and review a private rented sector strategy. The purpose of that is to recognise that the private rented sector is part of the solution, not part of the problem. In recent years, the sector has felt as if it is under attack, but we cannot solve the housing emergency without it.

I know that we are not short of housing strategies—or strategies altogether—in the Government, so I am hesitant to propose another one. However, because of the context, it is important to have something that is substantial and inclusive and which sets out objectives and a plan for delivery, and to make sure that that plan is monitored and reviewed every five years. That way, we will ensure that we do not return to the days when we saw the private rented sector as part of the problem, and we will entrench the sector in our housing priorities as a solution to tackling the housing emergency. That is the purpose of my amendments.

I move amendment 1.

That confidence was not unqualified, though. I am paraphrasing, but Mr Grice said that that has yet to be determined—or something to that effect. His confidence was not unbridled.

I do not want to get into the depths of this, but I would just point out that the SFC did not see Dundee coming, and it has missed the opportunity in many other problem areas.

The apprenticeship funding will be dwarfed by college and university funding. Can we be confident that, when the spotlight is off, the leadership of the organisation will treat apprenticeships with the priority that they deserve and which they currently get within SDS?

The spotlight on you will be off, too.

If the minister says, “Before stage 1”, I would just say yes.

I have expressed quite clear support for the Withers review and the process in Parliament, and I have been overwhelmed by two things: the strength of opposition to, and the timidity of support for, the bill. The minister will have seen and heard the evidence sessions; in summary, it was said in evidence that the bill is a costly distraction from the challenges that are ahead and potentially breaks the relationship with employers. The convener has covered that point, and you might wish to come back on it, but I just wanted to state my summary of the evidence.

I want to focus on something a bit different. Can the Scottish Funding Council cope with this change? When the previous interim chief executive, now chief operating officer, came before the committee, he was less than convincing; in fact, he had to write to us again to clarify what he should have said at the meeting. Not so long ago, he was in charge of the SFC. We have had the crisis at the University of Dundee, to which we still do not have a resolution, and universities and colleges throughout Scotland are facing financial problems. Can that organisation cope? The minister says that it will be a new organisation, but is the SFC capable of creating a new organisation with all of that going on?

The truth is that the SFC did not spot anything.

You have made my point for me. You have just described a lot of inquiries and potential changes to powers and responsibilities, but at the same time you are seeking to transfer responsibility for delivering a service, instead of commissioning or transferring funds to other bodies to deliver that service. It is a different type of function. The SDS delivers the apprenticeships model, while colleges and universities deliver something else with their college and university funding. We are talking about a different model and set-up, and it will be dwarfed by college and university funding.

Given all that context, do apprenticeships have any hope of getting priority, even if ministers think that they are important? You need somebody to champion apprenticeships, as the chief executive of SDS currently does, to ensure that they get the all-year-round support that they deserve and need, for the reasons that you have set out.

You have made the point that there is a lot going on in colleges and universities. Thinking of all the transfers that are going on, why are we shifting something when such a shift is opposed by many people, and its supporters are tepid in their support?

That might touch on one of the solutions. Partly, our amendments are trying to remove the ability to delay, because that exacerbates the problem. I do not know whether that is what the cabinet secretary is thinking about as a solution to the problem.

I will conclude at that point, because I am keen to hear what the minister has to say.