Post-16 Education (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Item 3 is continued consideration of the Post-16 Education (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. We will consider all the remaining amendments today.
I welcome to the committee the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Mike Russell, his accompanying officials, and Marco Biagi, who has joined us again this morning.
Everyone should have a copy of the bill, the third marshalled list of amendments, and the third groupings of amendments. We will pick up where we left off last week.
Section 8—Regional strategic bodies
The first group of amendments is on the assignation of colleges. Amendment 169, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 170 and 171.
Amendments 169 and 170 relate to the role of regional strategic bodies in proposing or approving colleges that are being assigned to them that have not previously been listed as fundable bodies in schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005 or which have not already been assigned to a regional strategic body. As the bill stands, the regional strategic body could only propose to ministers that a college be assigned to it after it has assessed whether the college meets the fundable body criteria specified in section 7(2) of the 2005 act.
On reflection, and having listened to the views of stakeholders at stage 1, we think that there is merit in transferring those functions from regional strategic bodies to the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council. That would ensure that a consistent approach is taken nationally in assessing whether colleges meet the fundable body criteria. That would be more efficient and would relieve the pressure on regional strategic bodies to resource themselves to fulfil that function. For those reasons, I invite the committee to support amendments 169 and 170.
Amendment 171 is linked to giving the Scottish funding council the role that I have just outlined and to a related amendment that I will move in a later group regarding the SFC’s role in informing ministers if assigned colleges no longer meet the fundable body criteria. Given those responsibilities, there is a value in relation to good governance in giving the SFC a complementary duty to review whether assigned colleges continue to meet the fundable body criteria. Amendment 171 achieves that.
It would be for the funding council to determine when it was appropriate to conduct such a review. After carrying out any review, the funding council will be required to report to ministers, setting out its conclusions and making any recommendations. I therefore invite the committee to support amendment 171.
I move amendment 169.
I am perfectly content with amendments 169 and 170.
On the face of it, I cannot see anything that is provided for by amendment 171 that would not already be done as a matter of course. I would be interested to hear the cabinet secretary set out the deficiency that exists regarding the powers that are currently available to the funding council that makes the amendment necessary. In what circumstances does he envisage such powers being used that differ from what happens at present?
In light of comments that I made last week about the structure that applies in the Highlands and Islands, is there something in the possible future structure of the University of the Highlands and Islands that might be at the root of this? Either way, I would welcome some additional clarification.
I, too, am very happy with amendments 169 and 170.
It would be helpful, cabinet secretary, if you could assure us that amendment 171 addresses some of the concerns that have been raised by the colleges within UHI.
On the powers that amendment 171 gives that do not exist at present, I can tell Liam McArthur that there will not be powers over assigned colleges unless the amendment is agreed to. That is the difference—that is why it is required.
On UHI, I recognise the position of Liz Smith and Liam McArthur. It is fair to say that I have had further representations from Highlands and Islands MSPs over the weekend, arising from a meeting that I think was held at North Highland College. As a result, I have copied to members the correspondence, and I am happy to meet Liz Smith and Liam McArthur, along with Highlands and Islands members, to ensure that we take the matter forward. I think that a solution is possible. I have spoken to James Fraser about the situation, but I would wish to discuss the matter in detail with members before returning to it at stage 3. That offer remains open. Members will have had an email from me yesterday, confirming that—I hope that they have, anyway.
Amendment 169 agreed to.
Amendment 170 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
Amendment 85 moved—[Michael Russell].
The question is, that amendment 85 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Against
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 85 agreed to.
Amendments 86 and 171 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Section 9—Funding of and by regional strategic bodies
Amendment 137 moved—[Liz Smith].
The question is, that amendment 137 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 137 disagreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
After section 9
Amendment 43 not moved.
Section 10—Regional strategic bodies: functions
11:15
Amendment 138, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendment 139.
New section 23E of the 2005 act as inserted by section 10 of the bill will require the regional strategic body to monitor the performance of the colleges assigned to it, and provides that such performance monitoring might include assessing the quality of fundable further and higher education. However, section 13 of the 2005 act also imposes a duty on the funding council to secure the making of provision for assessing the quality of fundable further and higher education provided by post-16 education bodies.
As the explanatory notes to the bill make clear, the SFC currently relies on the services of Education Scotland to review colleges, and our intention is that the activities of the funding council and regional strategic bodies should be complementary with regard to performance monitoring. Concerns have been expressed that the bill creates scope for duplication and, to prevent that, I have lodged amendment 139, which seeks to require regional strategic bodies to
“have regard to the desirability of preventing any unnecessary duplication”
with the actions of ministers or the SFC in relation to the performance of assigned colleges.
Amendment 138 seeks to build on that by adding the word “monitoring” to new section 23E(2)(a) of the 2005 act, as inserted by section 10 of the bill, and making it clear that in monitoring the performance of its colleges the regional strategic body does not have to arrange its own assessment of the quality of education provided by its colleges but can instead rely on assessments carried out by the SFC in the exercise of its duties under section 13 of the 2005 act.
I hope that it is clear that the amendments will be helpful in clarifying the role of regional strategic bodies in relation to performance monitoring, and I ask the committee to support them on that basis.
I move amendment 138.
We have concerns about amendment 138, which appears to extend the role of regional strategic bodies to give them an assessment and monitoring function with regard to the HE and FE provided in assigned colleges. We believe that the regional strategic bodies’ role is to work with and support assigned colleges instead of assessing and monitoring them, and we question how that would work in practice and how the relationship with the SFC would operate.
Amendment 138 actually seeks to do almost the opposite of what Mr Findlay has claimed. It will mean that the regional strategic body does not have to undertake its own assessment. Monitoring already exists; the body does not have to do it, but can rely on the assessments of the SFC, which, of course, relies on the services of Education Scotland. Instead of increasing the monitoring and assessment role, the amendment actually reduces it because the body would not have to undertake the task and could rely on the SFC and Education Scotland. I think that such a move is helpful rather than unhelpful.
The question is, that amendment 138 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 138 agreed to.
Amendment 139 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
Amendment 172, in the name of Neil Bibby, is grouped with amendments 173, 174 and 180.
Amendments 172 to 174 and 180, which are similar to the amendments that I moved last week on regional colleges, seek to ensure that colleges support economic regeneration, social inclusion and cohesion in their areas. On amendments 172 and 173, which focus on economic and social regeneration in college localities, I said last week that, at a time of such high youth unemployment, colleges must play a key role in supporting young people into work.
Colleges also play an important role in supporting older learners who want to retrain for employment and in giving people a second chance in life. As we discussed previously, they also support economic and social regeneration in our communities. As I said last week, colleges are important for Scotland’s economic needs, and the bill lacks a specific regional focus. Different regions face different challenges and have different needs and priorities. A regional focus allows for a tailored approach to the different challenges that each area faces.
There has been a focus on widening access to higher education, but we need to ensure that social inclusion in further education is also promoted, which is what amendments 174 and 180 are about. Learners might face challenging circumstances, so we need to ensure that colleges do all that they can and continue the good work that they already do to encourage people from disadvantaged backgrounds to take advantage of the training and retraining opportunities that are available.
As I said last week in discussing regional colleges’ responsibilities, local and regional economic issues are important, and they are as important, if not more so, in the context of regional strategic bodies’ responsibilities. The widening access agenda should be a priority for our colleges, which should promote social inclusion and cohesion in the communities that they serve. We should also take into account access for groups that are protected under the Equality Act 2012.
I move amendment 172.
In principle, most of us would have a great deal of sympathy with what the member has said. However, I am not sure that his amendments 172 to 174 and 180 are the way to achieve aims on which we all agree. I am interested in what the cabinet secretary says in response.
Neil Bibby’s amendments 172 to 174 are similar to those that we discussed last week when we covered the regional colleges’ functions. The amendments helpfully stress the important role of regional bodies in economic and social regeneration and in reducing social exclusion in the areas where their colleges are situated, so I am sympathetic to them. However, similarly to when we debated the issues in relation to regional colleges, I make it clear that, although I recognise and accept the points that are being made and I am more than willing to consider an amendment at stage 3 to seek to capture the spirit of Neil Bibby’s amendments, I cannot agree to the amendments themselves. I therefore ask him to withdraw amendment 172 and not to move amendments 173 and 174, and to work with us.
The same is true of amendment 180. I agree with the principle underlying it and I am entirely happy with the concept that the college sector, as well as the university sector and schools, should engage in efforts to widen access. Regional strategic bodies will have an important role to play, but there are technical difficulties with amendment 180. It lacks specificity and does not make clear who has the duty to identify those who are socially excluded. The term “socially excluded” presents difficulties, as it is inconsistent with the terminology elsewhere in the bill and its exact meaning is not made clear. Crucially, amendment 180 does not refer to underrepresentation, which is of course the core problem that all widening access efforts are intended to address.
Members will recall that, on the first day of stage 2, in response to Marco Biagi’s amendment 60, I gave a commitment to develop a stage 3 amendment that will establish widening access to further or higher education as one of the key matters to which the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council must have regard in the exercise of its functions. I believe that that would satisfy the overall aim of Mr Bibby’s amendment 180 while avoiding the difficulties that I have highlighted.
Therefore, I ask Mr Bibby not to move amendments 180, 173 and 174 and to withdraw amendment 172, and to work with the Government to ensure that we get the right amendments that carry the spirit of what he is trying to achieve.
I call Neil Bibby to wind up and to inform us whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 172.
I do not have much to add to what I said earlier. I am content with the wording of the amendments and where they are placed in the bill, so I intend to press them.
The question is, that amendment 172 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 172 disagreed to.
Amendment 173 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The question is, that amendment 173 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 173 disagreed to.
Amendment 174 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The question is, that amendment 174 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 174 disagreed to.
Amendment 140 moved—[Liz Smith].
The question is, that amendment 140 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Abstentions
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 140 disagreed to.
Amendment 175 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The question is, that amendment 175 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 175 disagreed to.
Amendment 176 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The question is, that amendment 176 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 176 disagreed to.
Amendment 177 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The question is, that amendment 177 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 177 disagreed to.
Amendments 87 and 88 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
Amendment 178 moved—[George Adam]—and agreed to.
Amendment 179 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The question is, that amendment 179 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 179 disagreed to.
Amendments 89 and 90 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
Amendment 180 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The question is, that amendment 180 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 180 disagreed to.
11:30
Amendment 141 moved—[Liz Smith].
The question is, that amendment 141 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Abstentions
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 141 disagreed to.
Amendment 44, in the name of Liz Smith, is grouped with amendments 45, 46, 142, 47, 48, 144, 49 to 52, 145 and 53.
One aspect of the bill that has created some confusion is that which addresses lines of responsibility and accountability. In several key passages of the bill, there is an implication that regional strategic bodies—except UHI—could require assigned colleges to move staff or assets as they see fit. That raises some issues, particularly with it seeming that one body would have control over staff contracts and the movement of assets while the lines of accountability would lie elsewhere.
The amendments in my name in this group, amendments 45 to 53, are aimed at ensuring that there is clarity on the issue, and at achieving agreement between institutions rather than an imposed arrangement that raises questions of accountability or conflict of interest. I am also content with amendments 142, 144 and 145 in the name of Neil Findlay.
I move amendment 44.
Amendment 142 removes the ability to transfer staff between regions, as we believe that the distances involved fall outside reasonable commuting distances and would make those transfers problematic. There is established employment law on the matter, so, although the Government might have the right to put such a provision in the bill, it would be difficult to apply in practice. We therefore believe that a straight deletion is best.
Amendment 144 is consequential on amendment 142. There is no need to consult other regional strategic bodies if no power is transferred to them.
Amendment 145 refers to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 and would introduce a practice similar to that in the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 in relation to transfer of staff. The power to transfer staff by regional board is widely drafted, and we want a reminder in the bill that employment law and contractual rights exist. After all, the regional board is not the employer.
Once again, I can see what the amendments in this group are trying to do, but I do not think that they achieve it. Throughout the whole process, there must be negotiations and discussions among the bodies involved, and there must be someone who makes a decision at the end of the day. I have some sympathy with the amendments, but maybe there is a way of working out something better for the future.
I broadly agree with George Adam. The intention behind the amendments is good, but I do not think that they achieve the results that they want, and I shall explain why that is in a moment in particular reference to one of them.
Essentially, I am saying that it would be best if the amendments were withdrawn and there was constructive discussion between now and stage 3 so that we can get similar amendments that work. That is a point that I keep making: as I have said throughout the process, I am happy to have that constructive discussion.
The basic policy intention behind the staff transfer provisions in the bill is twofold. The provisions assist in the sharing of services and ensure that, in multicollege regions, the regional strategic body has the power to give effect to its duty to plan for delivering coherent provision in the region. The judgment to be made in multicollege regions is in balancing the autonomy of the institutions with the ability of a regional body to pursue its regional plans.
Amendments 44 to 48, 50 and 52 would not achieve that balance, because they would remove all references in new section 23L to the terms “require” or “requirement” and replace them with the term “request”. The effect of amendments 49, 51 and 53 would require every transfer under section 23L to be binding only with the consent of the colleges.
The bill makes such a provision for UHI because of UHI’s unique geography. It would be inappropriate for such transfers in the UHI region to be decided without consent, but I am not completely persuaded that a requirement for there to be consent in every case would strike the right balance. However, I am happy to consider the issues carefully again and to return with amendments at stage 3. There is a balance to be struck, and it may well be that it lies between the two positions.
On amendments 142 and 143, there are cases in which transfer to a regional college or regional strategic body might be appropriate in supporting the delivery of shared services across two regions. It is something that, for example, the Glasgow and Lanarkshire regional boards might want to consider, given their close proximity. However, I am willing to reflect on whether those sorts of transfer need to be covered in the bill. I will do so in the context of my consideration around the provisions relating to transfer of staff and property ahead of stage 3.
I have a lot of sympathy for amendment 145. I want TUPE to apply to transfers made under section 23L. I am content to reflect further on whether such provision should be made in the bill, and I am happy to enter into discussions on that in the lead-up to stage 3.
My offer, therefore, is to look at the issues with the members involved and to have discussions to try to find a way forward. If the members wish to withdraw their amendments at this stage, we can come back with something that works.
I hear what the cabinet secretary says. My biggest concern—particularly regarding a lot of the rationalisation of colleges and the new structure that they will work under—is that we should have an agreement between the relevant institutions, rather than any hint that something might be imposed. That is why I will press my amendments.
I will press amendment 44.
The question is, that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 44 disagreed to.
Amendment 45 moved—[Liz Smith].
The question is, that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 45 disagreed to.
Amendment 46 moved—[Liz Smith].
The question is, that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 46 disagreed to.
Amendment 142 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 142 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 142 disagreed to.
Amendment 47 moved—[Liz Smith].
The question is, that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 47 disagreed to.
Amendment 48 moved—[Liz Smith].
The question is, that amendment 48 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 48 disagreed to.
Amendment 143 moved—[Liz Smith].
The question is, that amendment 143 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Abstentions
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 143 disagreed to.
Amendment 144 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 144 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 144 disagreed to.
Amendment 49 moved—[Liz Smith].
The question is, that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 49 disagreed to.
Amendment 50 moved—[Liz Smith].
The question is, that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 50 disagreed to.
Amendment 51 moved—[Liz Smith].
The question is, that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 51 disagreed to.
Amendment 52 moved—[Liz Smith].
The question is, that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 52 disagreed to.
Amendment 145 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 145 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 145 disagreed to.
Amendment 53 moved—[Liz Smith].
The question is, that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 53 disagreed to.
Amendment 91 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
11:45
Section 11—Regional boards: constitution
Amendments 92 and 93 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
Amendment 146 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 146 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 146 disagreed to.
Amendment 147 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 147 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 147 disagreed to.
Amendment 71 not moved.
Amendment 94 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
Amendment 181 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The question is, that amendment 181 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 181 disagreed to.
Amendment 95 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
Amendment 96 moved—[Michael Russell].
The question is, that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Abstentions
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 96 agreed to.
Amendment 54 moved—[Liz Smith].
The question is, that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 54 disagreed to.
Amendment 97 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
Amendment 148 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 148 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 148 disagreed to.
Amendment 182 moved—[Marco Biagi].
The question is, that amendment 182 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Against
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 182 agreed to.
Amendment 55 moved—[Liz Smith].
The question is, that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 55 disagreed to.
Amendments 98 to 102 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
The next group of amendments is on “Employee terms and conditions”. Amendment 149, in the name of Neil Findlay, is grouped with amendments 183, 153, 193, 194, 154 and 195. If amendment 193 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 194 and 195 because of pre-emption rules.
I call Neil Findlay to move amendment 149 and speak to other amendments in the group.
The cabinet secretary has spoken for some time of his desire to reinstate national pay bargaining, as did Professor Griggs in his report and, I believe, in his evidence to the committee. Amendments 149, 153 and 154 seek to take us along that route. If the cabinet secretary and the Government want to convince us that they want to move towards national pay bargaining, I certainly hope that they will agree to these three amendments.
I move amendment 149.
I call Neil Bibby to speak to amendment 183 and other amendments in the group.
I will speak only about my amendment 183, but I also support amendments 149, 153 and 154 in the name of Neil Findlay.
I believe that it is unnecessary and overly bureaucratic to create a new pension scheme. The existing scheme should continue to be accessed. We know that resources are tight and college staff are under a great deal of pressure at the moment. Setting up a new pension scheme would take a considerable volume of work and a significant amount of time that would be better spent focusing on the needs of college staff and students in our communities.
It is possible to become an admitted member of existing schemes—I understand that the police service recently joined the Strathclyde pension fund. Why can colleges not do the same and join existing schemes?
I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 193 and other amendments in the group.
Amendment 193 is particularly crucial. The role of the principal is pivotal. That is as much the case in the context of assigned colleges as elsewhere. In multicollege regions, principals will have a particularly key role in establishing a productive working relationship with their regional strategic body, which will be responsible for strategic planning in the region.
I am therefore pleased that Colleges Scotland has acknowledged the role that regional strategic bodies ought to play in the appointment of principals of assigned colleges, which is why I am happy to propose amendment 193 to reposition the role of regional strategic bodies to approve rather than make the appointment of the principal and the associated terms and conditions. I know that that was much sought at stage 1 and I think that it will be welcomed by the sector.
Amendment 194 is unnecessary. It makes provision for a regional college board to appoint a person as principal on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. That is already the effect of existing paragraph 16 of schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992. Amendment 195 would remove new paragraph 17(1A) of schedule 2 to the 1992 act. I agree that that should be done, which is why amendment 193 does it. Amendment 194 is therefore redundant.
Unlike amendment 193, amendment 195 does not recognise the appropriate role that the regional strategic body will play in the appointment of the principal. That is now recognised by Colleges Scotland. I therefore invite the committee to support amendment 193, and I invite Mr McArthur to not move his amendments 194 and 195 because the issue is dealt with in amendment 193.
Amendment 183 would remove the ability of a regional board to establish a new pension scheme. There is a difference—I put this argument to Mr Bibby—between encouraging access to existing pension schemes, which I would agree with, and removing the ability of a regional board to have any say in the matter at all, including whether to establish a new pension scheme if it wished to do so. Amendment 183 would actually prevent a regional board from establishing a pension scheme on better terms and conditions. Therefore, amendment 183 as drafted would not achieve its intention and would be a retrograde step.
I want to confirm to Mr Findlay, as I have done many times, that I am absolutely committed to a system of national bargaining for terms and conditions for colleges. I intend that to go into place—perhaps unlike my predecessors in previous Administrations up to 2007—and the regional leads have already established a framework for negotiation with the relevant trade unions. That process is on-going.
Having considered the matter, I think that Mr Findlay’s amendments would not actually give effect to national pay bargaining, which is already happening in the framework for negotiation. If there is a need to deal with the matter in the bill, I am willing to consider with Mr Findlay what words should be used, but the amendments in his name would not provide that. The framework that is being discussed—
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Let me finish, please.
That framework is in place, so allowing those negotiations to take place would be the best thing.
I am happy to take Mr Findlay’s intervention now.
Can the cabinet secretary give some indication as to when that framework will bear fruit? When will we see national pay bargaining?
That is in the hands of those who are negotiating on those matters, which is the proper thing to happen. The trade unions are engaged in that framework, which will produce the results. I am very keen that that process moves forward. The matter is complex and difficult, but I have given a commitment to national pay bargaining on many occasions and repeat it now.
If Mr Findlay wants the issue to be dealt with in the bill, I am happy to work with him to find a way in which we can insert a reference to national pay bargaining. However, the three amendments in his name will not achieve that effect and will not help matters. Therefore, I encourage Neil Findlay not to press his amendments but to work with us to ensure that that happens.
The cabinet secretary has already set the background to my amendments 194 and 195, which seek to address the potential conflict that would arise if the terms and conditions for the principal of an assigned college were set by the regional board while he or she was an employee of the assigned college and line managed accordingly.
Amendments 194 and 195 would avoid setting the strange precedent in which an employee of one legal entity has terms and conditions that are set by another legal entity. As a result of the bill, the board of an assigned college would be required to accept those terms and conditions, which might be different from those otherwise used in the college.
Obviously, the cabinet secretary has recognised that potential problem by lodging amendment 193, which appears to do much the same thing as my amendments 194 and 195. Perhaps the principal shortcoming of amendment 193 is that it pre-empts both the amendments in my name, but on this occasion I am prepared to commit hara-kiri by voting for amendment 193.
No other members have indicated that they wish to speak. I call Neil Findlay to wind up the debate and to indicate whether he will press or withdraw amendment 149.
I will press amendment 149.
The question is, that amendment 149 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 149 disagreed to.
Amendment 183 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The question is, that amendment 183 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
Abstentions
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 183 disagreed to.
Amendment 184 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The question is, that amendment 184 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 184 disagreed to.
12:00
Amendment 185 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The question is, that amendment 185 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 185 disagreed to.
The next group of amendments is on “Regional boards: general powers”. Amendment 186, in the name of Neil Bibby, is grouped with amendments 187 and 188.
The reason behind amendment 186 is not to expose colleges to the potential consequences of indemnifying third parties. I understand that the 1992 act states that no form of indemnification can be given without Scottish funding council permission. The bill as it stands refers to property. We should be opposed to any form of indemnification, as it would grant potentially unlimited guarantees to third parties that could potentially make colleges insolvent. If the granting of general contractual indemnification is to stay, it should be with the formal agreement of the Scottish funding council.
Amendment 188, which runs on from amendment 186, seeks to ensure that the boards acquire adequate insurance cover. The acquisition of adequate insurance cover should enable colleges to negotiate indemnification clauses out of most contracts that they are offered to sign—hence the amendment.
Amendment 187, in the name of Colin Beattie, would give general powers to form companies. Colleges have commercial activities, so I understand where the amendment is coming from, but I will allow Colin Beattie so speak to it in more detail.
I move amendment 186.
Amendment 187 is quite a minor amendment, in fact. Incorporated colleges already have the power to form and promote companies. The amendment clarifies that a regional board’s general power includes the ability to form and promote companies. That power could be used to support the delivery of shared services in their regions, for example. It is really just a clarification.
There is a question about why amendment 186 is necessary. I cannot see any reason to underpin the issue with legislation.
I would welcome clarification on the impact of amendment 188, as it appears to limit the board’s ability to guarantee or give indemnity.
Amendment 187 would give regional boards the powers to form and promote companies. I am a little unclear about some of the implications of that, given that regional strategic bodies are primarily funding bodies.
This group of amendments concerns the general powers of regional boards. The power that gives regional boards, like colleges, explicit powers to form or promote companies is sensible, and I can see no difficulty in doing so. Any funding body may wish to find opportunities on a regional basis to take its work forward by that means. Therefore, I support amendment 187.
Liz Smith is right about amendment 186. It seems rather odd to do what it proposes. I do not see why we should seek to legislate for such a level of prescription as we do not do so for other bodies. Therefore, I can see no reason to support the amendment.
Amendment 188 seeks to amend paragraph 14 of proposed new schedule 2B to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005 so that, in addition to property, a regional board will be unable to give a guarantee or indemnity over or in respect of any other matter without the written consent of ministers.
Paragraph 14 seeks to place regional boards, the SFC and incorporated colleges on the same legislative footing; the provisions will be common to all. I see no reason why we should differentiate between them, which the amendment would do. I understand the concern that Mr Bibby has expressed, but I do not think that it is a necessary precaution to make. Therefore, I invite the committee to reject amendment 188.
I call Neil Bibby to wind up and indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 186.
I will press it.
The question is, that amendment 186 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 186 disagreed to.
Amendment 187 moved—[Colin Beattie]—and agreed to.
Amendment 188 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The question is, that amendment 188 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 188 disagreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Section 12—Regional boards: mismanagement
Amendment 189 moved—[Michael Russell].
The question is, that amendment 189 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 189 agreed to.
Amendment 56 moved—[Liz Smith].
The question is, that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 56 disagreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
Section 13—Establishment and abolition of regional boards: supplemental
Amendment 57 moved—[Liz Smith].
The question is, that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 57 disagreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
After section 13
Amendment 150 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
Amendments 151 and 152 not moved.
Section 14—Review of further and higher education
Amendment 190, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 191, 192 and 11.
Section 14 inserts into the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005 new section 14A, the purpose of which is to give the SFC a power, with the consent of ministers, to review the extent to which fundable further or higher education is being provided by colleges and universities in a coherent manner. I acknowledge the genuine concerns of the sector, particularly those of Universities Scotland, about the effect that the provision might have on individual courses and institutions. I must point out that this section is not and never has been about eroding institutional autonomy and, indeed, throughout the bill’s consideration I have made it clear that I whole-heartedly support the concept of responsible autonomy.
There is a need for the SFC to take a more proactive and coherent view of both sectors to ensure that we get the best value from our highly significant investment in further and higher education. That is of critical importance if we are to be able to satisfy ourselves that that investment is delivering the best possible outcomes for learners and for the public purse, and I do not intend to step back from that.
However, following discussions with sector representatives, I have lodged amendments 190 to 192 to achieve three things. Amendment 190 seeks to change the structure and content of new section 14A(2) of the 2005 act, which sets out particular matters to which a review under section 14A(1) may relate. It will not alter the scope of the section 14A(1) review power. Section 14A(1) of the 2005 act confers on the SFC a power to conduct a review and a duty to report to ministers on that review—and no more. As I see things working in practice, the ultimate responsibility to respond to any review would, rightly, be on institutions and regional strategic bodies.
Amendment 191 seeks to introduce a specific duty for the SFC to consult relevant staff, students and institutions in any review. That should give all concerned reassurance that any review would be open, transparent and consultative.
Amendment 192 seeks to make provision for the final review to be presented to ministers and the relevant post-16 bodies and regional strategic bodies. That is important because, as I said, in practice the post-16 bodies and regional strategic bodies will be responsible for delivering and implementing any recommendations.
New section 14A of the 2005 act is not, and never has been, about eroding institutional autonomy. It provides a further mechanism for ensuring proper accountability for our significant public investment. Amendments 190 to 192 improve that, but do not impinge on institutional autonomy in any way, and I invite the committee to support them.
The remaining amendment in the group—Joan McAlpine’s amendment 11—raises an important issue. I fully recognise the unique role that the Crichton campus plays in the delivery of further and higher education in Dumfries and Galloway, and I am happy to put on record my continued and long-standing commitment to it. It is essential that local needs continue to be recognised by the funding council as a core part of the outcome agreement process. What the Crichton campus does is unique and extremely significant in a regional and a national context, so I support the aims of amendment 11, but I cannot accept the amendment as presented. I have concerns about the precedent that would be set by legislating for a particular local authority area, and I feel that the general review power that is contained in section 14 will allow the SFC to achieve those ends.
In January this year, I issued specific guidance to the funding council to ask it to put in place processes to develop a consolidated outcome agreement for the Crichton campus. That will include a consolidated widening access agreement, which is an extremely useful step forward. I think that that is the right approach to securing a sustainable future for the campus as a whole. On that basis, I ask Joan McAlpine not to move amendment 11, and I invite the committee to accept amendments 190 to 192.
I move amendment 190.
I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s comments about the Crichton campus, which is a highly innovative and diverse campus that encapsulates a number of higher and further education institutions. It is a unique centre of learning and an important asset to the area.
The purpose of amendment 11 is to ensure that the involvement of all relevant partners in the Crichton campus is placed firmly at the centre of planning of further and higher education in Dumfries and Galloway. It seeks to make specific provision to require the SFC, when it considers it appropriate, to review the delivery of further and higher education in Dumfries and Galloway through consultation with the relevant partners on the Crichton campus.
However, given the minister’s recognition of the campus’s importance and the measures that he has put in place to consult all the relevant parties, I will be happy not to move amendment 11.
I think that amendments 190 to 192 are correct. Universities Scotland was adamant about the fact that higher education teaching needs to be coherent throughout Scotland as a whole and within the regions, so I think that it is appropriate for the funding council to have a role in providing an overview.
Amendment 190 strikes the right balance between the powers of the institutions and the powers of the funding council. The existing provision would have given the funding council specific powers to review individual courses or the number of fundable higher education bodies in existence, which—as we discussed last week—would have been contrary to the concept of responsible autonomy. Amendments 191 and 192 continue that theme, most especially by stating that there must be full consultation with the governing bodies in conducting any review and that the university must be fully involved in the reporting process.
I cannot accept amendment 11 as it is unnecessary, particularly if amendment 191 is agreed to. It is overly prescriptive with regard to one area of Scotland, which could lead to unintended consequences.
12:15
Similarly, I welcome amendment 190, which strikes a better balance between the relative roles and responsibilities. Likewise, amendments 191 and 192 enhance and broaden the level of consultation, which is to be welcomed.
Amendment 11 shows a lack of confidence in the cabinet secretary’s bill. As Liz Smith indicated, it is overly prescriptive, and the objectives that it seeks to achieve will be achieved through the bill.
We support amendments 190 to 192.
We could all make the case for the uniqueness of education provision in our areas and there is a fear that, if we go down the route that amendment 11 proposes, we might have another 31 amendments to follow, with each claiming that a local authority area has a certain uniqueness and must be included in the bill.
Given that amendment 11 aims to widen the consultation process, I am a bit surprised that the member who lodged it did not support Neil Bibby’s amendments that sought to include community planning partners, transport providers and all the rest in the consideration of education in specific areas.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have finished.
There seems to be agreement on the changes that are set out in amendments 190 to 192. I am grateful for that, and I pay tribute to the members who have said that they agree and to Universities Scotland and other stakeholders who have negotiated the issue in a productive way.
On amendment 11, I believe, as a strong and long-term supporter of the Crichton campus and Elizabeth Crichton’s vision for the site, that it is important that we recognise how unique it is. Those who do not know the campus well should go and have a look at it. However, I have indicated the difficulty with placing the site in the bill, and I am glad that the member has accepted that. The Crichton campus deserves to be understood as a special intervention in Scotland and one that should encourage us in bringing together on a single site a number of institutions that retain their identity but are able to work together for educational purposes. That is quite unique in Scotland.
Amendment 190 agreed to.
Amendments 191 and 192 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
Amendment 11 not moved.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
After section 14
Amendments 60 and 61 not moved.
Section 15—Duty to provide information to Skills Development Scotland
Amendment 103 moved—[Michael Russell].
The question is, that amendment 103 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Abstentions
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 0, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 103 agreed to.
Amendment 104, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 106 to 108 and 62. If amendment 108 is agreed to, amendment 62 will be pre-empted.
The bill allows ministers to require by order any person to provide information about a young person to SDS. However, I have been persuaded by SDS’s view that it makes sense for ministers to have a similar power to require SDS itself to share data. It may be, for example, that SDS holds data about a young person and could assist a college to support that person. Amendment 104 gives ministers the power by order to require SDS to share information of that nature.
Amendments 106 to 108 all address points that the Subordinate Legislation Committee has helpfully raised. Amendment 106 clarifies the powers of ministers to substitute or amend references to the Skills Development Scotland Company Ltd in section 15 of the bill. Amendment 107 deletes section 15(7)(b). Amendment 108 makes orders that are made under section 15(1) subject to affirmative rather than negative procedure. It also provides that the new power that is being added at section 15(2)(a) by amendment 104 is subject to the same affirmative procedure.
Orders under new section 15(5)(b)—ministers’ power to substitute references to SDS in section 15 for references to a different person—will be subject to the negative procedure. Orders under new section 15(5)(a)—ministers’ power to change references to SDS, or any person who is substituted for SDS in section 15 in the event of a change of name of the person—will be subject to no procedure.
Liam McArthur’s amendment 62 does not, alas, meet the Subordinate Legislation Committee’s recommendation by making all orders that are made under section 15 subject to affirmative procedure except those that are the consequence of a change of name. Given that amendment 108 amends section 15 to meet the Subordinate Legislation Committee’s recommendation on the types of procedure that will attach to orders made under section 15, I see no reason why amendment 62 is necessary, and I invite Mr McArthur not to move it if it is not pre-empted.
I move amendment 104.
One of the few upsides to the travel disruption that I encountered earlier this year was that I missed the evidence session with SDS, although I have read the Official Report of the meeting and I know from speaking to colleagues that that issue was a unifying force for the committee, even if very few others were.
I am reassured on some of the initial concerns about the powers that are being sought, as those powers are not as wide ranging as we initially feared and are not seeking to create some kind of uber-database. Nevertheless, my initial attempt at lodging an amendment that would have removed those powers entirely was considered to be a wrecking amendment. I know that the cabinet secretary would consider it entirely uncharacteristic that I would be so bold as to lodge a wrecking amendment, so I sought another way to achieve the same end.
I recognise that amendment 108, in the name of the cabinet secretary, achieves much the same as I seek to achieve, but there is a need for additional scrutiny on top of what is in the bill at present. On that basis, I am inclined to support amendment 108, which will pre-empt my amendment 62.
Does the cabinet secretary wish to wind up?
I have made all the points that I possibly can.
The question is, that amendment 104 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Abstentions
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 0, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 104 agreed to.
Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 105 to 108?
Yes.
Yes.
We will go through the amendments individually.
Amendment 105 moved—[Michael Russell].
The question is, that amendment 105 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Abstentions
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 0, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 105 agreed to.
Amendment 106 moved—[Mike Russell].
The question is, that amendment 106 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Abstentions
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 0, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 106 agreed to.
Amendment 107 moved—[Mike Russell].
The question is, that amendment 107 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Abstentions
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 0, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 107 agreed to.
Amendment 108 moved—[Mike Russell].
The question is, that amendment 108 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Abstentions
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 0, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 108 agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
Schedule—Modification of enactments
Amendments 109 and 110 moved—[Mike Russell]—and agreed to.
Amendment 111, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 126 to 128.
I shall come on to amendment 111 in a moment. Amendment 126 fulfils a commitment that was given to the Subordinate Legislation Committee by providing that an order to establish a regional board or designate a fundable post-16 education body as a regional strategic body will be subject to the affirmative procedure. An affirmative order will also be required if an order seeks to remove a regional strategic body from schedule 2A to the 2005 act, except if such an order is required simply because a body has closed or ceased to exist.
Amendment 128 also fulfils a commitment that was given to the Subordinate Legislation Committee, as it amends section 34 of the 2005 act to provide that an order under paragraph 18 of schedule 2B to that act to vary the constitution or general powers of a regional board will be subject to the affirmative procedure, except when it does no more than vary the minimum or maximum board size, in which case the negative procedure will apply.
Given the Subordinate Legislation Committee’s comments on regional boards and its concerns about amending primary legislation by the negative procedure, amendment 111 is required to provide consistency in the procedure for varying the constitution of incorporated college boards as set out in the 1992 act. The amendment alters the procedures so that such orders are subject to the affirmative procedure, except when they do no more than amend the minimum or maximum board size, in which case the negative procedure will continue to apply.
I hope that providing for such additional scrutiny is welcome. I intend to lodge an amendment at stage 3 so that orders that amend the powers of colleges in section 12(2) of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 are subject to the affirmative procedure as well.
Amendment 127 also addresses a concern raised by the Subordinate Legislation Committee. It is about the order-making powers under section 4 of the bill and a tuition fees cap. That committee did not feel that the negative procedure represented an appropriate level of scrutiny for the exercise of the power and suggested that the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate if fees were being raised by a level that exceeded real-terms increases. Amendment 127 will amend section 34 of the 2005 act to achieve that.
Accordingly, I invite the committee to support amendments 126, 128, 111 and 127. I move amendment 111.
12:30
I know from the Colleges Scotland briefing that it has taken legal advice on amendments 111 and 127. I have no problem with amendment 126, but concern has been expressed about the measure in amendment 128 not being subject to the affirmative procedure, and I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary clarified the issue.
I wonder whether the cabinet secretary might be inclined to make the same offer as he made in relation to earlier amendments and withdraw amendments 111 and 127, reflect further on the matter and come back with amendments at stage 3, subject to the legal advice that Colleges Scotland receives in the interim.
I have seen no such legal advice from Colleges Scotland; indeed, we have received no such communication from it. However, I give the commitment that, if the amendments are agreed to and the legal advice that has been mentioned subsequently comes forward, I will consider the matter again and will lodge at stage 3 any amendments that are required. As I have said, I am completely unsighted on the information that Mr McArthur has referred to. I want to proceed with amendments 111 and 127, in the light of the Subordinate Legislation Committee’s recommendations.
Amendment 111 agreed to.
Amendment 112 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
Amendments 63 to 65 moved—[Liz Smith]—and agreed to.
Amendment 113 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
I remind members that, if amendment 114 is agreed to, amendments 66 and 67 will be pre-empted.
Amendments 114 and 115 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
Amendment 68 moved—[Liz Smith].
The question is, that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 68 disagreed to.
Amendment 69 moved—[Liz Smith]—and agreed to.
Amendment 116 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
I remind members that, if amendment 117 is agreed to, amendment 70 will be pre-empted.
Amendment 117 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
Amendment 153 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 153 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 153 disagreed to.
I remind members that, if amendment 193 is agreed to, amendments 194 and 195 will be pre-empted.
Amendment 193 moved—[Michael Russell].
The question is, that amendment 193 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Against
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Abstentions
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 2, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 193 agreed to.
Amendment 154 moved—[Neil Findlay].
The question is, that amendment 154 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 154 disagreed to.
The next group is on public appointments. Amendment 118, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendment 196.
Amendment 118 achieves regulation of the ministerial appointment of chairs of regional colleges and regional boards under the public appointments code by providing for the bill to add those offices to schedule 2 to the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Act 2003. That is highly appropriate and a central element of improving accountability.
It is necessary that the chairs of regional colleges and regional boards are ministerial appointments. There is precedent for that across public bodies in Scotland. It is essential that a fair and open process underpins those appointments, and regulation under the public appointments code provides that assurance. My officials have shared our proposals with the Public Appointments Commissioner’s office. I am therefore pleased to present amendment 118.
I thank Mr Bibby for his related amendment 196, which seeks to add the chairs of colleges assigned to regional strategic bodies to the list of offices in the same schedule 2 to the 2003 act. However, the amendment is technically deficient, given that, under that act, only ministerial appointments can fall within the Public Appointments Commissioner’s remit. The bill provides that the chair of an assigned college that is an incorporated college will, subject to limited exceptions, be appointed by the regional strategic body, not by ministers. The bill makes no provision on the appointment of the chair of an assigned college that is not an incorporated college; that will be dealt with by the relevant college’s constitution. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 196.
I move amendment 118.
I will keep my remarks brief, as there are only two amendments in this last group.
Amendment 118 supports the public appointments procedure for the appointment of chairs of regional college boards. I agree with the cabinet secretary that openness and transparency are vital. My amendment 196 would make that apply to assigned colleges, which is important. As for the cabinet secretary’s remark that amendment 196 is deficient, I do not know whether he does irony, but I suggest that the bill is deficient, never mind my amendment. I will press amendment 196.
I have made my points. Regrettably, amendment 196 is technically deficient: ministerial appointments can be made only in the way that I have described. I cannot avoid that; it is simply a fact.
Amendment 118 agreed to.
Amendment 196 moved—[Neil Bibby].
The question is, that amendment 196 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 196 disagreed to.
Amendment 119 moved—[Michael Russell].
The question is, that amendment 119 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Abstentions
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 0, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 119 agreed to.
Amendment 120 moved—[Michael Russell].
The question is, that amendment 120 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Abstentions
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 0, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 120 agreed to.
Amendment 121 moved—[Michael Russell].
The question is, that amendment 121 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Abstentions
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 0, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 121 agreed to.
Amendments 122, 155 and 10 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
Amendment 6 not moved.
Amendments 123 and 124 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
Amendment 125 moved—[Michael Russell].
The question is, that amendment 125 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 125 agreed to.
Amendments 126 to 130 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 17 to 19 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
Members will be delighted to know that that ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. The bill will be reprinted as amended and will be available tomorrow. The Parliament has not yet determined when stage 3 will take place, but members can now lodge stage 3 amendments with the legislation team. Members will be informed of the final deadline for amendments once the stage 3 date has been determined.
12:45
Meeting continued in private until 12:52.