Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the minister give way?

I agree, and I think that the member is trying to do the right thing, in principle. However, I worry that “sufficient” and “adequate” are subjective terms, so I wonder whether something could be done ahead of stage 3 to make the proposal a bit clearer so that we can achieve the aim without the subjectivity that is indicated in amendment 61C.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I wanted to intervene to apologise for getting the amendment number wrong. The minister is of course correct—it is amendment 5, and not amendment 6, which is in the next group. I think that I have a similar concern with amendment 6, but we can come to that.

I take the point about proposed new paragraph (e) and the wording

“such other persons as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate”,

but what would happen in a situation in which the minister did not consider that it was appropriate to consult apprentices or trade unions? Will the minister set out why he considers it appropriate to name the SFC, employers, education bodies and training providers in legislation, but not apprentices or trade unions?

You have set out a compelling case. Are you suggesting that you would consider waiting for stage 3 to choose the percentage and therefore not move the amendment at this stage, or will you move the amendment on a 10 per cent cap?