Seòmar agus comataidhean

Unlike Graham Simpson, I am probably going to disappoint everybody by saying that my amendments in the group are not the last ones that I will speak to, but we are getting close to the end of mine.

Together, amendments 189 and 195 would require ministers to establish a scheme for public bodies to act as guarantors for young people who are estranged from their families. That reflects the fact that many young renters, particularly students, have to provide a guarantor when they enter a private tenancy. In practice, the vast majority of the time, for Scotland-domiciled students, or for UK-domiciled students, that role is often fulfilled by a family member—typically a parent.

The scheme would deliver on a recommendation from a piece of research that the Government commissioned on the barriers that are faced by estranged students. That was published in 2022, but it has not yet been actioned. Guarantor requirements are often used in a discriminatory manner but, as long as those requirements exist, that small but vulnerable group of people should be supported. It is a sad reality that, for some young people, moving away from home for the first time for university or another reason is their first opportunity to escape an abusive family or home situation. Guarantor schemes act as a massive barrier to that, and they often allow abusers to maintain a position of power over young people into their adult life. Some universities already operate their own guarantor schemes, which is fantastic, but it is far from being the case that all universities do that.

This is the missing piece of the puzzle in support for estranged young people in particular. We have seen improvements in other areas, such as student support funding, which was campaigned for and won by Councillor Blair Anderson based on his personal experience of abuse and estrangement. He has worked with me on the amendments, which would make a huge difference for a small but really vulnerable group of young people who face a very particular barrier to being able to secure housing and escape from often unsafe home situations.

Amendment 189 would require ministers to set up such a scheme. Amendment 195 is simply a consequential amendment that sets out that the regulations that were relevant to that provision would come under the affirmative procedure.

I will wait to hear how the cabinet secretary is going to tie all that off before deciding whether to move my amendments in this group. However, on the point about financial uncertainty, it is worth putting on the record that my understanding is that, if every estranged student in Scotland made use of the rent guarantor scheme in a single year and defaulted, the cost would still be less than £10 million. In practice, there will never be a situation in which every estranged young person or student needs the scheme and where they all default at the same time.

Does the cabinet secretary recognise such a level of financial risk is one of dozens of examples of financial risk that the Scottish Government is able to successfully carry every year? In the grand scheme of a Government budget, not even a £10 million cost with not even close to a £10 million risk is perfectly manageable.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for laying that out. For clarity, is she suggesting that there is a way to legislate to make existing processes and schemes more consistent across the country? For example, could we work together on lodging an amendment at stage 3, or is she suggesting that we should try to improve the current non-legislative approach and that she will attempt to reassure us that there is an adequate non-legislative solution to that ahead of stage 3?

I understand entirely the cabinet secretary’s position, although I suggest that the Scottish Government often takes a risk-averse approach to the extreme in A1P1 cases. I am happy not to press the amendments, if the Government can commit to some kind of consideration and review of whether there is justification for expanding the provisions of the 2012 act to those whose leases were not covered at the time—those whose lease was more than a century at the time and is over 50 years at this point. Does the Government have any interest in considering the situation of those who were missed by the 2012 act, or is that not an area that it wishes to explore?

It is quite reactive.

Thanks very much.

Mary, you mentioned this a moment ago to Pam Duncan-Glancy, but the UCU submission contains proposals for more engagement at a national level between the SFC and unions on issues such as fair work. What outcomes are you looking for in that respect? You will forgive me, but one part of the system that I am less familiar with is the United Kingdom-wide collective bargaining aspects, and I am interested in how they would interact with a new national-level system, structure or framework in Scotland on issues such as fair work not just at an individual institution level but with the national funding body.

Are you looking for those discussions to result in the SFC mandating that, for example, a reduction in casualisation or zero-hours contracts be part of the outcome agreement for a university’s funding?

Could we legislate for anything to address the costs? Most of the time, cost issues are policy and operational matters, but they are still under our purview. Could we alter or amend anything in the bill to address some of those concerns?

I turn to Paul Campbell. In answer to the convener’s first question, Vikki Manson talked about the value of SAAB and the role that it plays in the current system. Working on the premise that the bill will be passed, are you clear about the status of SAAB during the transition period before we get to the new system? Has Government conveyed to you its expectations of SAAB during the transition period to the new dawn, whatever that may be?

I have one final question for all of you. It touches in particular on Carolyn Currie’s earlier point about women-led businesses consistently not being engaged or not getting the same level of engagement.

Having defined roles on the apprenticeship committee provides a space for employers. Over the years, leading up to the current situation, I have picked up from feedback a feeling that, while some employers, trade bodies and so on in certain sectors do very well out of the current system and feel very well represented and that their voice is heard, other folk feel that—whether it is because of the nature of their sector or the demographics of the business owners—that they cannot even get their foot in the door. Vikki Manson touched on that a little in talking about where the skills gaps are.

How do we build a structure to make sure that the system is hearing the voices of the people who cannot, as it stands, get their foot in the door; who are not happy with the current system; and whose feedback has, in many ways, led to the introduction of the bill before us?