���˿���

I refer Pam Duncan-Glancy to the points that I made in my earlier remarks. I said that I would be grateful if these amendments were not moved so that we can consider all the reporting requirements.

I said that I was not committed specifically to the matters in Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments, but, looking at those amendments together with Stephen Kerr’s amendment, we can consider in the round all the reporting requirements that have been suggested by both members in their amendments in this group. We can then lodge a suitable amendment at stage 3 to cover reporting duties and responsibilities, and I would welcome engagement on that. I hope that that gives Pam Duncan-Glancy the reassurance that she is looking for.

I thank Willie Rennie for raising those points, and I thank Universities Scotland, too, for its correspondence and engagement on these matters. As I said earlier, officials will meet Universities Scotland next week, and I look forward to further engagement with it on the bill, and on those points in particular.

The considerations with regard to ONS classification are, rightly, of pertinence, and are a priority for us all. As other colleagues have suggested in the debate, it is the existence, and scope, of intervention powers and the avoiding of operational control that we need to be mindful of. I will seek to move amendments 14 and 15, as I have emphasised, but I undertake to engage with Universities Scotland and to consider the point about the use of the word “necessary”.

We have been assured that the amendments that I will move, and the consequential amendment in the name of Ross Greer, which I support, are appropriate and balanced when it comes to consideration of ONS classification. However, I am grateful to Willie Rennie for raising those points, and we will consider them further as we proceed.

Despite the challenge of the festive break between stages 2 and 3, I am very committed, as I hope has been clear from the past few weeks, to having strong and constructive engagement with all colleagues who are interested in the bill. It would be useful to have another meeting with Miles Briggs, Pam Duncan-Glancy and Daniel Johnson, as we did between stages 1 and 2, so I am of course open to that.

I am clear, for the reasons that have been given, that in this group, amendment 197 is the amendment that I intend to support and finesse at stage 3.

Amendment 124, in the name of Daniel Johnson, seems designed to provide some certainty of future funding to training providers, which is, again, an admirable aim. It is the Scottish Government’s intention to ensure that there is no disruption to service delivery when responsibilities are transferred to the SFC on 1 April 2027. A new contract for training provision is expected to come into force on 1 April 2027, which will be procured by SDS for handing over to the SFC. However, as with any procurement exercise, we cannot guarantee that the same training providers will win the contract. Therefore, I cannot commit to the terms of the amendment, nor, I am afraid, to any other amendment in this group other than amendment 197 by Miles Briggs, as I have indicated.

I therefore ask that Pam Duncan-Glancy, on behalf of Daniel Johnson, does not press amendment 124 or move 196, and that she does not move amendments 198 to 201. I ask Miles Briggs not to move amendment 202. If they do so, I encourage members to vote against the amendments.

My amendments 19 to 22 all make minor technical amendments to the bill’s provision on the designation process for private providers of further and higher education.

The bill will enable regulations to be introduced that will set out in detail the process for applying to become a designated private provider, as well as, through the amendments, the process for the approval of particular courses of education offered by those providers. That will ensure effective oversight of the courses that are to attract public funding. I therefore cannot support Miles Briggs’s amendment 203, which seeks to remove from the bill the power to designate private providers, meaning that students and education providers would be unable to benefit from the transparency offered by the new process that will be set out in regulations.

It is possible that amendment 203 is motivated by a misunderstanding about the privatisation of tertiary education. Some stakeholders have misunderstood part 3 of the bill as allowing private providers to be funded in the same way as fundable bodies. That is not the case. Several students already undertake further and higher education courses that are run by education providers that are not post-16 bodies under the 2005 act, because those providers have historically offered a type of provision that was not commonly delivered by publicly funded colleges or universities—mainly in creative courses such as dance, musical theatre and drama. Therefore, there are good reasons why private providers exist in the sector, and the purpose of part 3 of the bill is to make the process for supporting students at those providers more transparent.

Although I support the intention behind amendments 204 and 205, both of them raise operational difficulties and risk placing a very high administrative burden on colleges, which we would want to avoid. I would like to consider further what can be done by amendment at stage 3 in relation to reporting more generally. I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for lodging the amendments and would be happy to hear more from her to help inform our thinking, but I invite her not to move them at this time. If she does, I ask members to vote against them. Likewise, I urge members to vote against Miles Briggs’s amendment 203 but to vote for my amendments 19 and 22.

I move amendment 19.

It may be of assistance to Pam Duncan-Glancy for me to clarify that we are not changing the way in which colleges handle FE student support through the bill. I hope that that provides reassurance. Aside from that, I have nothing to add to my opening remarks.

Amendment 19 agreed to.

Amendments 20 to 22 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 203 not moved.

Section 18, as amended, agreed to.

Section 19—Directions relating to student support

Amendment 204 not moved.

Section 19 agreed to.

Section 20 agreed to.

After section 20

Amendment 205 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

Yes, I am.

As I said, I agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, but I do not think that a legislative framework is the best way to approach the issue. I would be happy to have more dialogue with Pam Duncan-Glancy on that in due course.

It appears that amendment 143, in the name of Daniel Johnson, would require the SFC to make arrangements for assessing and enhancing the delivery and standard of programmes of training for employment, work-based learning and the training of apprentices.

The drafting of the amendment is unclear and it could suggest that the assessment and enhancement is conducted by the grant recipient. In my view, quality control is more appropriately managed through the conditions of grant or terms of contract. Given those points, I hope that Pam Duncan-Glancy, on behalf of Daniel Johnson, will not move amendment 143 and if it is moved, I encourage members to vote against it.

Amendment 142, in the name of Daniel Johnson, would require the SFC to conduct financial scrutiny of payments that are made to fundable bodies and others. As financial scrutiny is not defined and is therefore open to interpretation, it is unclear what the provision aims to achieve. In light of that lack of clarity, I ask that Pam Duncan-Glancy, on behalf of Daniel Johnson, does not move amendment 142. I would be happy to discuss the intent behind the amendment and the matters therein with Pam Duncan-Glancy and/or Daniel Johnson to see what a different approach might achieve, possibly at stage 3. If amendment 142 is moved, I encourage members to vote against it.

Amendment 144, in the name of Ross Greer, would allow the SFC to arrange for an independent investigation into the fundable body’s compliance with terms and conditions that the SFC imposed when providing payments to that body. The 2005 act already requires the governing body of any fundable body to provide the SFC with any information that it requires in connection with the exercise of its functions. Penalties for non-compliance are more appropriately set out in grant letters or contracts issued by the SFC. I hope that that reassures Ross Greer and that he will not move amendment 144, but should he do so, I encourage members to vote against it.

I want to make it clear the Government’s commitment to fair work principles, which we have set out jointly with the Scottish Trades Union Congress, and to the fair work first policy and the conditions in that regard that we apply to grants made by the Scottish Government. We expect all our public bodies to adhere to and implement the spirit as well as the letter of those principles in all that they do, and we expect those organisations making grants on our behalf to apply fair work first, too.

I am therefore pleased to support amendment 145, in the name of Miles Briggs, which would require the SFC to have regard to the desirability of protecting and promoting the interests of

“staff, including in relation to Fair Work First principles”.

As it seeks to put in place a softer duty of consideration rather than something that would create binding legal sanctions or compel compliance, it will not cause the same issues with legislative competence that we have discussed with regard to other amendments.

I also welcome Ross Greer’s amendment 47, which would require the council to have regard to

“the economic, social and environmental priorities of the Scottish Ministers”.

I am happy to support it.

That said, in respect of both amendments, I might need to come forward at stage 3 with some technical adjustments to ensure that section 20 of the 2005 act works well as a whole and as intended. I am sure that Miles Briggs and Ross Greer will appreciate that.

George Adam’s amendment 16 would put beyond doubt Scottish ministers’ expectations with regard to the need for the SFC to consult and engage widely. The amendment seeks to create a new list of persons in section 22 of the 2005 act with whom the SFC would be required to consult and collaborate with, and a new power to amend the list by subordinate legislation, if required.

Under amendment 16, the SFC would be required to consult and collaborate with employers of Scottish apprentices, training providers and representative bodies of both groups. It would also provide for the list to be added to in future by order, as I have mentioned. That is an important expansion, reflecting the SFC’s wider remit under the bill, and I hope that it will allay concerns expressed by a range of stakeholders and the committee about the particular role played by key delivery partners. I hope that everyone will welcome business and employers playing a key role at the heart of the process in relation to apprenticeships, and I am therefore happy to support George Adam’s amendment.

Unfortunately, I cannot support the other amendments in the group, and I will set out briefly why. With respect, amendments 146 and 149, in the name of Stephen Kerr, raise questions about interpretation that might, in practice, generate administrative effort and cost. For example, different people might have different interpretations of what the phrase “respects the autonomy” means in practice. As colleges of further education are public bodies and are classified as part of central Government, it would be confusing to state in legislation that they are autonomous.

I must also ask Stephen Kerr not to move amendment 147. I would like to consider it further, because it is worth considering the burden on the organisations that are mentioned. I would be grateful if we could discuss that as part of the dialogue that we will have between stages 2 and 3.

However, I cannot support Stephen Kerr’s amendment 148. It is contingent on amendment 119, which was already debated in group 8. It is not the role of the SFC to secure assessment of labour market demand and skills shortages; the identification of skills needs is a job for SDS to do.

Amendment 150, in the name of Miles Briggs, would cut across the provision in section 3 of the 2005 act, which is amended by the bill. Broadly speaking, section 3 places a duty on the SFC to secure the coherent provision of tertiary education and training. With amendment 16 and with section 20 of the 2005 act, as amended by some of the amendments that have been supported here today, broadly the same result will be achieved.

In summary, I can support amendments 145, 16 and 47, and I hope that members will vote for them. I do hope that Stephen Kerr will not move his amendments 146, 148 and 149, but if he does, I encourage members to vote against them. The same applies to Miles Briggs’s amendment 150.

Appointing the right people to the council is obviously important, and I can see from members’ amendments that they agree with that overarching aim.

Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 172 would cut across the public appointments process and the code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies in Scotland, issued by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland. Therefore, with respect, it is not clear to me why the amendment is necessary. When we appoint new council members, their relevant skills and experience are highlighted in the press release and relevant publications. Barring the reappointment of a member for a period of four years from the end of their tenure, which is limited to only four years, is unduly restrictive. If the commissioner considers a maximum term of eight years to be appropriate, why do we need to be more restrictive, as proposed by amendment 172? If a member had relevant skills and experience when they were appointed, I am not sure of the benefit of checking again on reappointment. Therefore, I do not support amendment 172.

I turn to amendments 173 to 180. It is currently at ministers’ discretion who to appoint to the council. The 2005 act sets out some of the skills and experience to which ministers should have regard when making appointments. It is helpful for the legislation to provide pointers to ministers as to what to consider, but it is unhelpful for the legislation to bind ministers. We do not know what tomorrow’s issues will be, and we need the flexibility to appoint a council that is well placed to respond. For example, five years ago, it was unclear that AI would become such a dominant consideration as it now is; it is likely to have a dramatic impact on the tertiary education system, training and workplaces. Amendments 173 to 180, however, would require the council to have the following members.

Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 173 would require the appointment of a student at a college of further education—they could also be the person with experience of undertaking fundable further education, who would be required under amendment 174—a student at a higher education institution and an apprentice or workplace learner.

Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 174 would also require the appointment of a deputy chair with a research and innovation background; someone with experience of financial due diligence and someone with experience of workforce planning.

Daniel Johnson’s amendment 181 would require a chair of an industry skills board.

Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 176 would require an accountable officer of a college of further education and an accountable officer of a higher education institution.

Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 177 would require the appointment of three people nominated by recognised trade unions representing the employees of colleges, higher education institutions and the three public bodies.

All those people would account for potentially 10 of the 11 to 14 positions available. It is just not appropriate or desirable for legislation to bind ministers in that way.

I will come to that in my remarks, if that is okay.