Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes.

I think that such an approach will give false confidence, because I am not confident that the SFC will have the wherewithal and the expertise to interpret how the institution is performing, beyond what the external auditors, the court and the senate are already scrutinising. If we introduce the proposed powers, there is a danger that they could not only threaten ONS classification but give the public a belief that we are on top of this, when, in fact, the SFC might have no more ability to understand how the university in question is functioning or should function. Therefore, I think that we should rely on the existing mechanisms to provide that challenge and ensure that these institutions, which are, in many cases, too big to fail, do not fail in the end.

We, and the public, will be more alert. The court, the senate and the external auditors will have learned from the Dundee experience, and they will provide greater challenge. That should not mean that there should be a guarantee that the Government has a right to interfere or a compulsion to do so.

I will conclude on that point.

If the minister has finished with Jackie Dunbar’s amendments, I want to make a point about my amendments 31 to 33. They are not about limiting fees, but about having special recognition for managing agents. Currently, that sort of recognition does not exist, so the amendments seek to include those agents in the bill. Will the minister address that point, or can we have a discussion about it afterwards?

Let me go through some of the other arguments.

On amendment 15, the Scottish Funding Council already has the statutory duty to secure coherent provision, but it is believed that the issuing of statutory guidance specifically on

“the needs and interests of current and prospective learners”

is an overreach, too. As members will know, some of the learners at our universities are international students, who are privately funded. As those students receive no public finance for their education, I do not understand why the interests of all current and prospective learners should be the responsibility of the Funding Council when it does not contribute towards the education of those students. What particular tools does the Scottish Funding Council have to assess that anyway?

Amendments 14, 14A, 14B and 15 would give the Funding Council greater responsibility and, therefore, greater reach in relation to the role of universities. That is the concern here. Moreover, those amendments do not draw a distinction between colleges and universities. As we know, colleges and universities have different ONS classifications, and bringing in a set of rules that would treat them equally would undermine those classifications.

My final point is on the University of Dundee. It was an extreme case, and it was unique—perhaps not that unique, but unique enough. We should not legislate on the basis of a crisis in one institution. We need to be incredibly careful that we do not put in place a set of rules that potentially threatens ONS classification, as that could potentially give rise to greater crises than we have seen at Dundee university.

I come back to what Ross Greer said. On two separate occasions, he said that there was no compulsion and no ability to compel. Those two requirements are, I think, a challenge. These institutions—the universities—should have the freedom to act as the independent bodies that they are. If the Government, through the Funding Council, has the opportunity to compel them to act, we will be overreaching into the ONS classification space.

Therefore, despite what the minister has said, I encourage us to take a deep breath and take some time before stage 3 to have proper discussions on this matter, involving all members, so that we can all be confident, in the way that Mr Ross has set out, about having clarity on ONS classification, and when it is and is not applied.

For my four amendments in this group, I have been working with SELECT—Scotland’s electrical trade association. Amendment 30 specifies that Scottish ministers may make

“provision of grants, loans or payments to managing agents”

for the delivery of Scottish apprenticeships or work-based learning.

Amendment 31 would add a reference to “managing agent” alongside training providers in relation to the SFC making grants for apprenticeships and work-based learning.

Amendment 32 is consequential, and amendment 33 would add the definition of “managing agent”.

The purpose of the amendments is to address what has been quite a controversial debate during the scrutiny of the bill, about the role of managing agents. I know that Mr Adam had a particular concern about the margin and the profitability that it is claimed that some of those managing agents take. My amendments are an attempt to rebalance the discussion, because managing agents have an important role to play, within a strict set of rules. Therefore, they should be specified in the bill to ensure that we provide assurance about those who provide a very good service, in order to enhance the role of skills development and work-based learning in Scotland.

Managing agents undertake a variety of different important roles, including offering pre-employment assessments to all applicants; arranging the enrolment of apprentices and adult trainees to 22 colleges across Scotland; co-ordinating and timetabling courses at colleges; providing teaching materials; paying college fees; and providing training support to apprentices and employers.

I am keen to hear the minister’s response to that, to see whether the amendments are necessary and whether he can provide me with assurances about the role of good managing agents.

There is obviously nervousness about Office for National Statistics classification for the universities, and I notice that the member has not drawn any distinction between the rules that he would like to apply to colleges and universities. Has he sought advice about the consequences of the proposals in his amendments for the university sector with regard to ONS classification?

I am not in favour of duplication. If the committee could have a more independent status, so that employers felt that they owned it, rather than being chosen to come on to it, that would address some of the concerns. If we can get to a stage at which we can have a discussion about improving that independent status and the ownership of the employers and industry, we might be able to address those concerns. However, I am not in favour of having two structures. That would be pointless and competitive.

The model is adopted in many other countries, such as Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Canada, Korea and the United States, although I am not sure whether that is a recommendation. It is the accepted standard, partly because it reflects what is in amendment 25 about having a general duty to make sure that the system is tied in with economic need. If we have that in tandem with a body that employers see as their body and which has an oversight role, we can make sure that the reforms work together as a package.

As always, I am reasonable. I am prepared to discuss all that, and I think that Daniel Johnson’s amendments are worthy of consideration.

That is my main argument, and I hope to receive the minister’s response in his summing up.

The key element that Ross Greer, Pam Duncan-Glancy and I debated was the independent status of the body. Having a sub-committee does not sound as substantial as having a fully flourishing board with a degree of independence. Will the minister look at how the appointments process works, as that applies to all committees or arrangements, to ensure that industry and employers feel that they are not just the chosen few but are representative of the wider sector and that they have a degree of independence so as to provide the necessary challenge in the system? Can we look at that before stage 3 and strengthen that independent status? Is that something that you would consider doing?

I will support the minister’s amendments on this area, as they assist the partnership approach with employers, business, industry and others.

I am, though, proposing that we go further. The consultation that I am proposing seeks to address the concern of many employers that transferring responsibility from SDS, which has a close relationship with many employers, to the SFC, whose arrangements have traditionally been with universities and colleges, requires a more robust consultation element. It might be a bit more cumbersome and challenging process, but it is necessary to ensure that we have a partnership approach, and that employers understand that it is a partnership; that we have a degree of co-design; and that we are intent on strengthening the relationship for the longer term, not just the period following this discussion and debate.

That is why I propose that we go a bit further—not an awful lot further, because the minister’s approach includes aspects of consultation, too. However, we should embed that consultation as an important part of rebuilding the relationship with employers.