Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 56 is supported by UCU. It states that the training for governing boards must include

“financial oversight ... financial risk ... their legal responsibilities as members of the governing body ... their responsibilities in relation to the constructive challenge and scrutiny of senior leadership of the higher education institution”

and

“whistleblowing procedures.”

It also says that the Scottish Funding Council must provide guidance on the training and the body must confirm that that has happened.

Amendment 64 provides that a fundable body must have in place a whistleblowing procedure that is clearly communicated to all staff, students and members of the governing body of the fundable body; provides for the confidential reporting of concerns relating to issues, including but not limited to financial mismanagement, failure of governance, bullying or retaliation, and risks to learner provision; and provides protection against detriment to individuals who raise concerns in good faith. It states that a fundable body must notify the council when it receives information through the whistleblowing procedure and, on receipt of it, the council must consider whether any action or support is required as a result of the notification.

Amendment 65 seeks to put the known principles of public life on the face of the bill and would require boards to act accordingly to secure funding.

Amendment 66 seeks to impose a condition that, before implementing any decision that could significantly impact provision for learners, levels of staffing or financial sustainability, the council

“must, when making a payment to a fundable body”

require that it takes

“reasonable steps to inform and consult ... recognised trade unions ... organisations representing students of the body”

and

“any external partners.“

It also requires the board to report the engagement to the SFC.

Good morning. I associate myself with Willie Rennie’s comments and congratulate the convener on his award last week.

Amendment 38, in my name, would require the preparation of a national skills and apprenticeship funding strategy that set out

“the Scottish Ministers’ priorities for funding national training and apprenticeship programmes with a view to meeting medium and long-term skills needs ... how school-phase pathways, including foundation apprenticeships and senior phase technical routes, are reflected in the priorities ... the intended roles of the bodies to be involved in delivering the priorities”

and

“how the Scottish Ministers intend to measure success in delivering the priorities.”

The amendment sets out that the Scottish ministers must consult employers, trade unions, employers who are subject to the apprenticeship levy, schools, colleges and universities.

Amendment 38 is intended to bring much-needed coherence to the landscape. As we heard from many stakeholders who gave evidence on the bill, there must be a far more strategic focus on skills in Scotland, with connections between industry, school and the education system all the way through someone’s development, from cradle to career.

Amendment 39 would require ministers to publish a report that set out how the strategy was meeting the skills needs in industry and in the public sector, so that we can be confident that we will not have more years with skills gaps in key industries. Recently, we have heard that, as a result of skills gaps, we have had to import skills from other countries. That is regrettable, so we should ensure that we have proper plans not just for construction, plumbing and welding, for example, but for the public sector, where we have significant skills gaps, including in the teaching and health workforces.

Taken together, those two amendments would provide much-needed coherence to the skills and education landscape. I commend them to the committee and hope that they can meet with support from members.

Amendment 207 is a consequential amendment that commences amendments 38 and 39.

I move amendment 38.

Will the minister give way?

I hope that the minister will forgive me if I have misunderstood the wording of his amendment 4. Can you explain why the wording

“in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the person”.

would be removed from the bill? Would that have implications for people who are relocating as a result of a skills gap? How would that affect what we are doing to encourage people, such as teachers, to move to rural areas? Have I completely misunderstood the Government’s intention with that amendment?

Amendment 73 simply asserts that, if public money goes to a private or independent provider, we will require value for money, fair work standards and transparency on spend. Given that there are examples of the Government applying conditions on grant funding that include fair work, I am not sure that the amendment would lie outwith legislative competence, because it is about when the grant is given to the fundable body.

I recognise the work that the minister describes. Nonetheless, the principal of North East Scotland College told us that the direction from Government was not there, and that, with regard to strategic approach and priorities, colleges therefore “cracked on” and did it themselves. The college sector expressed concerns in evidence to the committee during our pre-budget scrutiny that the existing model, even with flexibilities, was not meeting what it considered to be demand, in relation to not only the scale of that demand but the needs of young people with additional support needs in colleges, and that it was not providing support for English for speakers of other languages. None of those things has been addressed. Would the minister accept that?

If I am honest, I remain sceptical about whether that is the case. I have seen ministers talk about the Government’s fair work principles in other areas and assert that they can guarantee those principles in certain sectors. What the minister says appears to contradict that, which causes me some concern.

Fundamentally, amendment 73 is trying to ensure that we have value for money, that the fair work standards are met when we give any public funding to fundable bodies and that those bodies are transparent on spending. If the minister were to intervene in response, I would be interested to know whether he agrees that value for money, the fair work standard and transparency on spending must all be guarded and whether he would be willing to work ahead of stage 3 to come up with an amendment that he considers to be within legislative competence.

I appreciate the minister’s clarification, but I am left feeling unclear about the Government’s position on whether it would be important to require those things as a matter of law. The Government is proposing the movement of public funds to organisations that we all, I think, hope and believe will provide value for money, support fair work principles and be transparent about how they use their funding. We have heard that public sector institutions, such as colleges, are keen that any requirements that are applied to them are also applied elsewhere.

I am a bit concerned that the Government will not be prepared to work on a stage 3 amendment that would be within legislative competence if it considers that amendment 73 is not within competence. That would leave us in a position where protections for that money are not in the legislation and I do not think that that is an acceptable circumstance for us to be left in.

Will the minister give way?

The member will know that his amendment 26 pre-empts one of mine, which will affect voting. How would amendment 26 impact on whether young people who undertake foundation apprenticeships should be considered to be employed?