���˿���

We have considered the issue and I had to think very carefully, particularly with regard to the reservation of employment law. I have also listened carefully to the arguments that Mr. Greer has made at committee today. Points around pay differentials and income inequality are of significant interest to me and are pertinent to all our society and to the matters that we consider collectively as parliamentarians.

I stand by the arguments that I have made so far but would like to give the matter further consideration ahead of stage 3, given the keen interest that Mr. Greer has expressed in the arguments that have been related at committee today. I would be happy to undertake further consideration of those issues ahead of stage 3, and that is all that I will undertake to do today.

Yes.

Yes.

There is a difference between the two things. We consider the grant offering of awards of public resource more widely in relation to budget and other circumstances, but we must be very careful about people’s conditions and pay with regard to legislative competence. That is where the employment law reservation is absolutely pertinent. Of course, it would be better if the UK Government devolved employment law to this Parliament, because we could then consider those matters more widely without being restricted.

I move to Maggie Chapman’s amendments 52, 53 and 57 to 60. I appreciate the points that have been raised, including by the convener, and I am happy to consider what more can be provided with regard to the balance after this meeting. However, I have already mentioned the risk of individual amendments in this group potentially having an inadvertent and undesirable consequence in relation to ONS reclassification. I also must give consideration to the cumulative weight of most of the other amendments in this group and to what their passing would mean for the classification of our institutions. I fear that that would be the impact of nearly all of Maggie Chapman’s amendments in this group.

I appreciate why Maggie Chapman is seeking to introduce those sorts of conditions. However, I am conscious that we should respond to the circumstances at the University of Dundee by addressing those specifically rather than legislating for all circumstances, as that would have serious potential consequences in the long term for all our institutions.

I also contend that some of Maggie Chapman’s proposed statutory conditions are unnecessary, as they already exist in practice. The SFC’s terms and conditions of grant include provision to ensure appropriate governance, including compliance with the principles of good governance set out in the sector code. For those reasons, I cannot support amendments 52, 53, 57, 58 or 59 in the name of Maggie Chapman.

I am, however, happy to support amendment 60, which would require the SFC to require any fundable body to which it is making payment to put in place a conflict of interest policy. It would mean that each member of a fundable body’s governing body and each senior officer would have to declare any registrable interest and withdraw from any meeting or decision-making process when there might be a conflict with that interest. It would require fundable bodies to publish, update and review a register of interests. It seems that that will further transparency and will simply give statutory effect to what is already being done in practice, and it will be useful to make what is expected clear in law.

The ONS risk also applies largely to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments 56, 65, 67 and 68, so I am not able to support them.

I am, however, happy to support amendment 64, which would give Scottish ministers the power to require the SFC to require a fundable body to have a whistleblowing procedure in place. Amendment 64 requires that the whistleblowing procedure is communicated clearly to all staff, students and members of the governing body; that the fundable body sets out an elicited list of the type of matter that must be capable of being reported in confidence; and that it provides protection against detriment arising from raising any such concern. That is all highly desirable, and I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for introducing such an important matter into the bill process and debate.

I am also happy to support amendment 66, which requires fundable bodies to inform and consult unions, students and external partners before making decisions on provision for learners, staffing levels and sustainability. Although the relevant sector codes already set out a number of principles for staff and student consultation, it is desirable to make clear the expectations for consultation and meaningful engagement by underpinning it in statute.

In light of the recent travails in the sector, I and the Government more widely have given careful consideration to the amendments in this group and I appreciate the reasons why members have lodged them. We need institutions to be accountable for their use of public money, but we also need to ensure that Government intervention does not interfere with their autonomy. Universities are private sector bodies and I hope that everyone in the Parliament would wish them to remain so. As I have said, too much Government control raises the risk that the ONS would reclassify them as public sector bodies.

We should also be cautious about putting in place onerous and punitive measures for every university and college in Scotland because of the poor governance and financial management at one outlying institution. I do, however, agree with members that we need to make sure that people have the full confidence that public funding is being used efficiently, effectively and wisely, which is why I welcomed the responses of the SFC and Universities Scotland to the Gillies report. It is important that the college and university sectors consider carefully the lessons that are to be learned from the report’s findings. The SFC has committed to enhancing the ways in which it monitors institutional governance, and I expect it to engage closely with the sectors on that work. The Government is adding powers at stage 2 that will help the SFC to do that.

Although the Gillies report found that the SFC’s financial memorandum and sector-owned “Scottish Code of Good Higher Education Governance” remain fit for purpose, we will look to make any appropriate enhancements to prevent a repeat of the situation at the University of Dundee.

I reiterate that I cannot support amendments 52, 53, 56 to 59, 62, 63, 65, 67 or 68, and I encourage members to vote against them for the reasons that I have set out.

I prefer amendment 12 to Ross Greer’s amendment 51, and I encourage members to vote against amendment 51.

I support amendments 50, 60, 64 and 66 and encourage members to vote for them. I support amendment 3 in principle, but I ask Pam Gosal not to move it to allow me to consider reframing the issue ahead of stage 3. If she does move it, I encourage members to vote against it.

I ask Miles Briggs not to press amendment 50, but if he does, I encourage members to vote against it.

I also ask Ross Greer not to move amendments 61 and 61A to 61E. If he does, I encourage members to vote against them.

My amendment 4 concerns the funding of training providers, putting beyond doubt that they are not restricted from operating in a commercially profitable way and that the SFC’s payments need not be only for the direct reimbursement of expenses.

As I emphasised earlier, private sector training providers do an important job in our system and our economy, where they are used to bring capacity and capability that are not available from colleges and universities. I am keen that the key role that they now play in our skills landscape should continue in future. It is appropriate for commercial organisations to operate a business model that generates legitimate and proportionate profit and I hope that members will support amendment 4.

Okay. I will start again on that shortly, and take an intervention from Ross Greer on amendment 69.

I am not able to give that firm commitment at this juncture. It will be important to put before Parliament the proposals that were set out in the letter sent on Monday, but, as always, I will be happy to engage with Pam Duncan-Glancy on these matters ahead of stage 3. When it comes to wider considerations of skills planning and with particular reference to these amendments, I think that there is strong alignment across the Parliament on what we want and need to do. I suggest that we engage on that ahead of stage 3.

However, I urge Pam Duncan-Glancy not to press or move these amendments, and if she does, I encourage members to vote against them.

Before I turn to the specific amendments in the group, I thought that, to give members the full context, it would be helpful if I set out what the Government is currently doing in this area.

Through the colleges tripartite alignment group, the Scottish Government, the Scottish Funding Council and Colleges Scotland regularly discuss issues in the sector, such as challenges that arise from the college funding model. The changes to the funding model that were implemented by the SFC in academic year 2025-26 were in response to requests from the sector to address issues regarding transparency and funding comparability between learners on similar courses and colleges.

Each year, ministers issue letters of guidance to the SFC, setting out strategic priorities. Last year, that letter included specific issues for the SFC to consider when reviewing or updating its funding allocation model. As the SFC advised the Education, Children and Young People Committee on 1 October, it is engaging with Colleges Scotland and the wider college sector on fundamentally reviewing the funding allocation model.

I appreciate the drafting of the amendment, but I must emphasise that it would be going into primary legislation, which is why it is outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

I am, as always, happy to have further engagement with Pam Duncan-Glancy. In this instance, as in many others, she has lodged amendments in areas where we want to make a difference to social justice and to delivery. As I have emphasised, we must carefully consider the employment law reservation. This is a primary legislation process, which is why I am being so strong on that. We cannot move beyond the legislative competence of this Parliament. That is an absolute necessity for us all, so, without being party political, I am just stating as a matter of fact that the complication comes from the fact that employment law is not within the competence of this Parliament.

I will not necessarily give an undertaking to lodge a similar amendment on those matters, but I am happy to give an undertaking that I will be open minded and to have further engagement with the member on the wider issues in amendment 73.