Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will add to those answers, as this will also be of interest to Mr Briggs. In recent weeks, I met the principal and, as far as I recall, the chair of Dundee and Angus College in relation to their specific capital concerns and issues. The Government has been receiving more information on that for some time, which forms part of our considerations.

In terms of wider sustainability and the years ahead, Miles Briggs might be aware of the tripartite group in which the Scottish Government liaises with the Scottish Funding Council, Colleges Scotland and representatives from the sector. Its most recent meeting was held yesterday, when we had a helpful and constructive discussion on various issues and ideas for the way forward. I look forward to progressing that work in the new year in ways that ensure that, together, we not just meet the challenges that our college sector faces but make use of the huge opportunities that exist for the economy, communities and work to tackle poverty, given the important role that colleges play as anchor institutions in all that.

Thank you, Mr Kidd. There is quite a lot in that, so I ask the convener to bear with me as I go through it.

Before we talk about international students, it is important to emphasise for context, as I did in the chamber during the most recent committee debate, that official statistics released in March 2025 by the Higher Education Statistics Agency show an overall increase in the number of Scotland-based students at Scottish universities to 173,795, as well as a rise in full-time Scottish first-degree entrants.

We have hundreds of international students in Scotland, and they are very welcome. In recent months, we have sought to emphasise how welcome international students are in Scotland by, for example, ruling out the levy that the UK Government is going to charge international students. By doing that, we have sought to make sure that we emphasise that international students are welcome, and to try to create advantage for Scottish institutions that are competing for international students.

Remarkable collaborative work is also being done with the relevant stakeholders to tell the world as broadly as we can that Scotland is a great place to study, with remarkable institutions, historic prominence, reputations and extremely high-quality delivery. We know how well our universities do in the international rankings, for example. Scotland is a great place to study. We want people to come here, and we are trying our best to emphasise that in an environment in which the UK Government is making it more difficult for students to come here and has sought to tell the market indirectly that we want fewer students to come here. That is the only message that can be deduced by the immigration changes that are being made.

The pressures that our universities in Scotland face are similar to the pressures that universities across the UK face, in that financial sustainability is being compromised because of a number of external factors, one of which is the immigration changes. The unexpected national insurance hike was also challenging for our universities and it continues to be so as it was not alleviated in the UK Government budget that was announced at the end of last month.

Our universities are facing a challenge. We are seeking to support them and there will be more information about the work on sustainability that we are doing collaboratively and on a cross-party basis in the period ahead.

With regard to students from Gaza, I recently had the great privilege of meeting some of those who have come here to study. They are remarkable, skilled, passionate and determined individuals who have acquired and sustained their education in unimaginable circumstances. We can only try to think of how difficult it has been for them, and they are here in Scotland and grateful for the opportunity to study at our universities and to contribute to our society. They will also be determined to contribute to the rebuilding of Gaza and their society, if they return.

One of the issues that they face concerns visa arrangements, which goes back to the central point that the UK Government immigration changes are making it more difficult for people to study here.

Adam Reid wants to inform the committee about that.

Anecdotally, I have heard this week from a contact made at an event that I attended at the University of Aberdeen about the negative impact on international admissions resulting from the UK Government’s immigration policy. It is important that the Government explores beyond anecdotal feedback, but that feedback is concerning.

I will be engaging with Universities Scotland in the weeks ahead, and I hope to have the opportunity to ask that question at some point during the dialogue and deliberations that I will have with Universities Scotland tomorrow. I would like to get a sense from the sector of whether other institutions are experiencing that. If they are, that is concerning for us all in Scotland and across the UK, as it shows the negative impact of UK Government immigration policy on our university admissions processes.

I endorse everything that the cabinet secretary just said. We need to consider the issue collectively and in the broader context. The ambition is fair access for everyone who wants to go to university and whom university is right for, and, in recent days, the commissioner and I have talked about that in relation to widening access.

From what I have heard around the committee table, in previous engagement in Parliament and certainly from stakeholders, I feel that we collectively want to lead a shift in social consciousness whereby people undertake the pathway that is right for them. Genuine parity of esteem needs to be realised by moving away from any sense of hierarchy of achievement. Of course, different qualifications require different demands, skills, talents and abilities, but the most enrichment for the individual and for all of society together would be getting to the point of parity of esteem, whereby people feel empowered to proudly drive forward in the area that is right for them.

That wider context is important in relation to Withers and what we are trying to do with apprenticeships.

Will the member give way?

The language that Pam Duncan-Glancy used at the end of her comments is, again, unhelpful. I know that it is a good line for a press release, but the bill is about making serious institutional change, based on the recommendations of the Withers report, in order to improve our system and to meet the needs of the modern economy and of learners, and enhance opportunities by funding apprenticeships, colleges and universities through the same institution.

As was rightly emphasised, the body will be a redesigned institution, which will incorporate many of the staff from SFC. We have discussed, particularly in the stage 1 debate in the chamber, the importance of their role and expertise, and how much their contribution is valued now and will be in the redesigned model. [Ben Macpherson has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]

On the safe transfer of powers, the SFC will be ready for 1 April 2027. It is the new information technology system—[Interruption.]

I clarify that the SFC will be ready from 1 April 2027. The points that Pam Duncan-Glancy referenced with regard to 2029 relate to the new information technology system. I do not want to make any further comments on her amendments. I know that Pam Duncan-Glancy, like me, wants to make the skills system as good as possible. I look forward to hearing more on her 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. [Ben Macpherson has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]

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.

With the convener’s permission, I will continue from where I finished.

Bill Kidd’s amendment rightly identifies employers, colleges and universities, training providers and trade unions representing the interests of apprentices as having a strong interest in the work of the apprenticeship committee. I agree with him, and I would welcome strong representation on the committee from those groups.

In the same vein, I am happy to support Miles Briggs’s amendment 188, which would effectively expand the scope of desirability considerations by the council to include people who represent the interests of businesses in relevant industries. His amendment 189 covers similar ground to that covered by amendment 188, so I hope that he might see that it is now not needed.

Amendment 187, also in the name of Miles Briggs, seeks to require the SFC to consult persons who appear to represent the interests of businesses in relevant industries when appointing members of the apprenticeship committee. The emphasis on consultation is helpful and I support the amendment, although I may wish to tidy up the framing at stage 3, should Miles Briggs be agreeable to that.

Amendment 182, also in the name of Miles Briggs, is not strictly needed, because the apprenticeship committee can consult and collaborate under the same duties and powers as the SFC, where appropriate. However, the amendment seeks to emphasise the importance of the views of local authorities in shaping apprenticeship delivery, which I agree with, and I am therefore happy to support it.

Lorna Slater’s amendment 191, as spoken to by Ross Greer, would change ministers’ power to give the SFC guidance on the operation of the apprenticeship committee into a duty to do so. It is absolutely our intention to issue such guidance to the SFC, so I am happy to support the amendment.

I hope that amending the bill in the way proposed in amendment 191 will give comfort in respect of members’ concerns about who should be a member of the apprenticeship committee, because ministers will issue guidance on the issue. For example, the Scottish ministers could specify that more than half the members have to be employers or employer representative organisations, and could insist on there being representation of other groups.

A number of amendments in the group aim to specify that particular types of people should be members of the apprenticeship committee. Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 183 seeks to require at least one member from a body that represents the interests of small and micro businesses, and at least one member who is an employer in a sector in which a majority of the businesses that are engaged in that sector are micro businesses. Miles Briggs’s amendment 184 seeks to require that one or more members must represent the interests of businesses in relevant industries. Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 185 seeks to require that one member must be a Scottish apprentice or work-based learner, and one must be a college student. Monica Lennon’s amendment 186 would require at least one member who is a trade and industry representative.

Those are all reasonable suggestions, but it might not be helpful to set such requirements out rigidly on the face of primary legislation in the way that those members envisage.

Ahead of stage 3, I would like to consider whether we need to say anything more in the bill about the types of member of the apprenticeship committee beyond what is in Bill Kidd’s amendment 18. In doing so, I will take on board all the types of representatives that members have sought to include through their respective amendments.

Daniel Johnson’s amendment 181, which Pam Duncan-Glancy moved, would remove the apprenticeship committee from the bill and substitute it with provision for an industry skills board. The apprenticeship committee is capable of delivering the requirements that are set out in Daniel Johnson’s amendment 181. I prefer the approach that is set out in the bill, so I cannot support amendment 181 and I urge members of the committee to reject it.

Willie Rennie’s amendment 37 seeks to ensure that the chair of the apprenticeship committee is an employer or represents the views and interests of employers. I share his concern that the apprenticeship committee must reflect and consider the needs of employers, but I think that there is a better way of achieving the same aim. It is important that the apprenticeship committee is chaired by a member of the SFC, but amendment 37 would remove that requirement. The apprenticeship committee should be chaired by a member of the SFC for reasons of effective governance and to make sure that the committee has a powerful voice on the SFC board. However, the chair of the committee must have the right skills and experience, which means ensuring that there are members of the council who have the skills and experience that Willie Rennie has set out and can, therefore, be asked to chair the committee effectively.

The SFC will make further appointments in 2026, and the Scottish Government will ensure that the skills and experience that Willie Rennie is looking for are acquired through that process. That is the most appropriate way forward.

I would be happy to discuss all of that with Willie Rennie ahead of stage 3, together with the discussion that I have undertaken to have about his amendment 24, which falls into the same wider area of consideration.

As Miles Briggs set out on his behalf, Stephen Kerr’s amendment 190 would require the apprenticeship committee to have at least 20 members, and the majority of the members to be employer or industry representatives. There is a balance to be struck around the size of this or any committee. If there are too few members, it will not have sufficient variety of skills, experience and views, and if there are too many, it will be costly and hard to manage, even with regard to simple things such as finding mutually convenient dates for meetings. It would therefore be unhelpful for the bill to set a specific number of members when we have not accumulated any experience of the way in which the committee will operate.

The SFC needs to engage stakeholders, including employers and workforce representatives, on the design of the committee and whether it should have subcommittees to support it. It would be premature to set the size or composition of the committee in primary legislation, as amendment 190 envisages. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment.

Stephen Kerr’s amendment 192 seeks to require the apprenticeship committee to report to the Scottish Parliament on how employer views have informed its decisions and recommendations. Scottish ministers will give the SFC guidance on the committee’s functions, and that guidance can set out what, if anything, the apprenticeship committee needs to publish and when. Reports from the apprenticeship committee will be best dealt with administratively, especially given the SFC’s statutory duty to provide an annual report that includes the work of its committees. In terms of governance, it would be inappropriate for a committee of the SFC to report directly to the Scottish Parliament, given that the SFC’s role is to report to Scottish ministers, the Parliament and publicly. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 192.

It is not fully clear what Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 193 seeks to achieve, although I appreciated what she said about it earlier. It appears to be about ensuring that learners have the support that they need to be a member of the council. That could be financial support, but council members are remunerated and can claim expenses. It is not obvious that learners would need something additional, beyond what the SFC would be required to provide in making reasonable adjustments to support a member with a protected characteristic. I do not consider that amendment 193 is necessary, but I undertake to ensure that we communicate to the SFC our expectations for support for council members, including in relation to aspects such as training.

The bill forms part of our work to simplify the funding body landscape so that it is more efficient and achieves better outcomes. I fully support the need for regional skills planning and an appropriate response to that in terms of provision. However, I cannot support Stephen Kerr’s amendment 194, as it would result in a plethora of regional skills boards with associated costs. It is unclear how those boards would interact with the apprenticeship and skills committees, with which they are more likely to come into conflict given their overlapping roles.

The amendment would also give a specific function to the SFC that currently sits with SDS, so I cannot support amendment 194.

In summary, I ask members to vote for Bill Kidd’s amendment 18, Miles Briggs’s amendments 182, 187 and 188, and Lorna Slater’s amendment 191.

In light of my commitment to look again at the issues raised in their amendments, I ask Pam Duncan-Glancy not to move amendments 183 or 185, Miles Briggs not to move amendment 184, and members not to move amendment 186 on Monica Lennon’s behalf. If they do, I encourage members to vote against the amendments that I have listed.

I hope that Pam Duncan-Glancy, on behalf of Daniel Johnson, will not press amendment 181; if she does, I encourage members to vote against it. I hope that my undertaking on board appointments will persuade Willie Rennie not to move amendment 37; if he does, I encourage members to vote against it.

I ask Miles Briggs not to move amendments 190, 192 and 194 on behalf of Stephen Kerr; if he does, I encourage members to vote against the amendments. Finally, I hope that I have assured Pam Duncan-Glancy that I share the aims behind her amendment 193 and that she will now not move that amendment. If she does, I encourage members to vote against it.