���˿���

Part of the whole point of bringing the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council together with the Scottish Further Education Funding Council was to attempt to break down the barriers between university and college funding. However, that did not succeed, and the situation has never changed. Is that not a warning that perhaps these structural changes do not deliver the policy change that, as you quite reasonably set out, you desire to achieve? That innovative approach, looking at different ways to provide apprenticeships and, perhaps, expanding the amount of money going into them, is never going to happen.

That is a reason against change. Why do you think that there needs to be change?

Does the modelling for the member’s proposals include the effect on investment in the sector? Does she understand what they would do to house construction?

What you have said about the purpose built student accommodation and the wider approach is welcome. We have learned that we cannot tackle the housing emergency on our own, just using the public sector; we need the private sector and private investors to be included. We are not talking only about specific proposals, but about the rhetoric that we use. Using language such as “exploitative” in relation to landlords in a generalised way does not help to provide confidence to those who are seeking to invest. On that front, I have seen a change of direction from the Government, and we now have a much more inclusive approach to tackling the housing emergency.

We are witnessing the effects of the Scottish Government’s welcome change of direction on housing policy over a period of time. It is an example of the need to understand how, when we consider only one side of a debate and do not have a comprehensive understanding of the effect of any proposals, there can be negative impacts, as we have seen with the massive decline in the build-to-rent market, which is down by something like 26 per cent over the past year.

Too many of my constituents, and many people across the country, are desperate for a house. We cannot simply consider one side of the argument. We need to consider investment and demand, but also supply. We are broadly getting to that position now. The reason why there are lots of proposals on exemptions—including mine—is that we want the Government to confirm that it understands that, and to ensure that there is a complete change of direction. I have to say that the confidence was not there before, but we are moving in that direction now, which I am pleased about.

I would prefer my amendments to become part of the bill to give clarity and confidence to investors, but I understand the process that the minister set out on a consultation on exemptions. However, for the sake of it, I will go through what I am proposing, which I hope is reflected in the conclusion of the consultation.

I am looking for specific exemptions for mid-market rent and build-to-rent properties, which is what the Government has indicated in its consultation paper. In particular, I want the proposals in amendments 329B and 329G, which ask that registered social landlords be excluded, to be considered. Mark Griffin is right to say that there was a discussion on mid-market rent when we discussed the emergency measures, so this is not a new debate. At that time, we were unable to get that nailed down, which knocked the confidence in the RSL sector, which, of all the sectors, is the one that we should be encouraging to build more. I would like it to be excluded altogether from the rent control measures.

Amendments 329D and 329I try to give a definition of mid-market rent for landlords who are providing accommodation. That would be set at around half the amount of open market rent.

The build-to-rent proposals in amendments 329C and 329H state that build-to-rent properties should be defined as those that are “purpose built”, are in “institutional ownership”, are “professionally managed” and are “self-contained”. Those phrases are included in the Government’s consultation, but I would also like to see them in the bill.

I suspect that the cabinet secretary will not give us any response to those proposals, but I hope that she hears the strength of views that have been expressed by many members.

I am interested that you do not want to deliver massive shocks into the system at a time when you are transferring massive sums from one organisation to another, but I will leave that to one side.

Your colleagues spoke to the committee before about Dundee university. Our concern at that point was that they were not telling ministers the truth about the financial situation—or it might be better to say that they were not being frank with ministers about the dire situation in universities. Is it not a concern to you that, following that, we will not be publishing the financial sustainability report for our universities and colleges until months later? Might not that feed into our anxiety that you are not being frank with ministers?

My question is for Clare Reid. Some, although not all, of the businesses and business organisations that I speak to are pretty angry about what is happening. They think that they are going to lose two things. One is business or employer involvement in the organisation that is responsible for the funding. Secondly, because they see that the university and college sector is under financial stress, they think that funding will be diverted away from apprenticeships. I am puzzled as to why your members are not reflecting that wider concern that I am picking up.

You both started the session by being quite positive about the bill, but you are getting more negative as you give your answers. Is that a fair representation of where this is going?

Earlier, you made a point about the need to have the proper resource to get the right people with the capacity to deliver the change. From your knowledge and experience over the years in various sectors—the public sector and the university sector—do you think that that is going to happen? From what you have seen before, do you have much confidence that the process will be properly resourced in that way?

My amendments in this group are about safeguarding and the role of the inspectorate in checking the systems of, primarily, local authorities for identifying safeguarding issues and dealing with those appropriately.

The GTCS has a responsibility, but that is only for teachers, not other staff in schools. Also, the GTCS does not have responsibility for the system; its responsibility relates only to an individual’s fitness to teach. There is therefore a vacuum—a space—which has been identified, apparently, by Neil McLennan and his colleagues, who have campaigned on the issue.

I have had several discussions with the GTCS. It recognises the issue but also recognises the limitations on its powers, because it is funded by individual teachers in relation to fitness to teach and the regulation of teachers, not in relation to the wider system.

I have therefore sought in my amendments in this group to give responsibility to the chief inspector to check local authorities, primarily, on their inspection processes to ensure that the local authorities deal appropriately with safeguarding and its systems, not just in relation to teaching staff but for other staff as well. Amendment 308 would add a requirement for inspections to include a look at safeguarding arrangements. Amendment 332 sets out that the inspection plan would have to consider how inspections would be used to monitor safeguarding.