Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am conscious of the time, convener, so unless Sai Shraddha Viswanathan or Andrew Ritchie is particularly keen to come in on this one, I am happy to leave it there.

I just want to pick up on that and perhaps be just a bit provocative. I entirely understand your position that, given the nature of the businesses that you represent, it is important that the federation is there to provide a collective voice. However, is there not a bit of a conflict of interest in having a managing agent who is in receipt of a lot of funding sitting on the committee, too?

I agree with that, absolutely. Before I bring in Paul Grice, in the small number of potential scenarios where there was a rogue institution, to use a perhaps pejorative phase, what would an effective enforcement mechanism be? We can all generally agree that clawback will almost never be the appropriate mechanism, but a rogue institution is a possible scenario. What would be agreeable to Colleges Scotland as an SFC enforcement mechanism?

I will return to the governance stuff, but given the time, I am going to roll two questions into one, because they are somewhat related.

First, I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the bill’s proposal for an SFC apprenticeship committee and the role that you would expect industry and employers to play on it. Separately, the apprenticeship board is being wound up. How do you think the transition away from that body should be managed? I am not suggesting that it will be a like-for-like move—that is, the committee in SFC will not be a replacement for the board—but, on governance arrangements, I am interested in your thoughts on the apprenticeship committee overall, but specifically the role of industry and employers on it, what you would want to see and how we manage the move away from the winding up of the SAAB.

Do not feel obliged to answer the question.

What other actions should be taken in winding up the SAAB to ensure that there is a smooth transition?

That is great. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Do you want to comment, Stephanie?

Amendments 38 and 39 are relatively simple amendments. Amendment 38 seeks to strengthen provisions in relation to the chief inspector and amendment 39 seeks to strengthen provisions in relation to the Scottish ministers. The amendments concern the range of groups that the chief inspector must consult in preparing the inspection plan and that the minister must consult when bringing forward the relevant regulations.

The wording that I have used in the amendments is

“such persons as the Chief Inspector considers representative of relevant educational establishments”—

that is, they should consult a representative range of schools in particular, although there are other establishments under the inspectorate’s purview. I chose the wording to make it clear that the expectation is not that they must consult every school in Scotland before engaging in the process, but that they will consult a representative group thereof and organisations that represent their interests.

With amendment 92, I am trying to address some of the concerns and areas of really important disagreement in the committee and in Parliament on where the inspectorate should sit and who it should be accountable to. Without going back to the previous debate about the independence of the inspectorate, I note that the amendment will require the chief inspector to lay a draft inspection plan before Parliament for 60 days. Parliament can then give feedback on the plan, and the chief inspector must have regard to that feedback. The feedback will not be mandatory. We can be open and honest about the fact that Parliament is not always right, but our feedback should be taken seriously nonetheless, and any resolution that is passed by Parliament should be given due regard. The amendment is intended to address the concern about parliamentary oversight of the inspectorate and how it goes about its duties.

I urge committee members to oppose the cabinet secretary’s amendments 92A and 92B, which seek to shorten the timescale from 60 to 40 days. We should all reflect on the capacity challenges that Parliament and committees face, and 60 days is my attempt at a compromise. Originally, I was more inclined towards 90 or 120 days. The inspection plan is not a document that should ever be produced in a rush or with urgency. There should be time to consider it, and 60 days will strike the right balance. I recognise the concerns about having a period of 90 or 120 days, but 60 days strikes an appropriate balance, while 40 days would provide challenges to Parliament, particularly given that, as we are all aware, circumstances often dictate that we must turn our attention to other matters. The impact of the situation at the University of Dundee on this committee’s work plan is an example.

For those reasons, I hope that members will support amendment 92, but I cannot support amendments 92A or 92B.

I am glad that the member is pushing the issue on to the debate and that he said that these are probing amendments. I have a lot of sympathy for what he is proposing.

Part of my concern about the operational aspect is the idea that the inspectorate would have to engage with every complaint that is received. I am sure that we have all had complaints in our email inboxes. I have had someone complaining about a school because the school was helping to deliver vaccinations to children and the individual who complained thought that the vaccinations included 5G chips from Bill Gates. Not every complaint is equal, so there needs to be some flexibility to ensure that spurious complaints can be dismissed, so that, if we assign such responsibility to the inspectorate, its focus can be dedicated entirely to serious complaints, although I agree that there is a gap in the system around addressing those.