Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
We move to item 3, for which the minister will remain with us. I welcome Fiona Hyslop, who is exercising her right to move amendments and participate in the debate. However, the voting member for the Scottish National Party, in addition to me, is Michael Matheson.
This is the second day of stage 2 consideration of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill and I hope that we will complete our consideration of the bill today. This is a continuation of the debate that began last week. I remind members that today we will have to vote on some consequential amendments that were debated last week, as they relate to sections 9 and beyond. We got up only to section 8 last week. Amendments 16, 18 and 19 were debated with amendment 7, and amendments 5 and 21 were debated with amendment 1. When we come to those amendments, I will remind committee members that we have debated them and need only vote on them.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
Section 11—Funding of fundable bodies
Amendment 34, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 15 and 17.
Section 11 places a duty on the council to consult the governing body of a fundable body before imposing terms and conditions when making grants, loans or other payments to it. Section 11 also places a duty on the council to consult other persons whom it considers appropriate before laying down such terms and conditions. The council deliberately has more discretion to decide in which situations consultation with others is appropriate. It is worth emphasising that a reference in statute to consultation implies consulting in a meaningful way and having regard to responses. That issue was raised last week.
The existing councils have expressed concerns that the first duty to consult governing bodies may be restrictive at times when money has to be passed to institutions quickly—for example, in allocating additional moneys or, as is the case now, end-year flexibilities in budgets. This year, we have made additional moneys available to support investment in capital and infrastructure. Under the bill as drafted, it is possible that an absolute duty to consult could hamper the council's ability to allocate such sums late in the financial year. Amendment 34 will allow the council, when it considers it not expedient to consult, to set terms and conditions without consultation. As drafted, this places the onus on the council to consult unless it has good reason not to do so. That strikes what we see as the appropriate balance between ensuring that the council has the flexibility to react quickly to specific situations and safeguarding institutional input in terms and conditions of grant.
In considering amendment 34, we considered the council's other duties to consult in sections 11, 13 and 22. As drafted, those are currently limited to consultation "as it considers appropriate". After further consideration, we felt that there may be some ambiguity in that phrase. It is felt that a wide discretion as to how to consult is implicit in the duty to consult if the bill is otherwise silent on that consultation—that is, if the council has a duty to consult, it will do that in a way that it considers appropriate. It is important, in setting a duty to consult, that we do not deny the council the ability to act swiftly when it considers that necessary and appropriate—for example, in the allocation of end-year flexibilities. In general, consultation is desirable, but it may not be justified or possible in limited circumstances such as those which I have described. That has led us to lodge amendments 15 and 17, which propose to change the duty from "as it considers appropriate" to
"if it considers it appropriate to do so".
A similar amendment, amendment 20, has also been lodged in relation to section 22, but it has been grouped with other amendments to that section and will be debated later.
These amendments provide consistency at the points in the bill at which the council is given a duty to consult. That will ensure a correct balance, so that the council has the flexibility to act swiftly as required. At the same time, it must, as it does now, consult in an appropriate and meaningful way with others before making the important decisions that it will undoubtedly make. Clearly, the council is best placed to make that judgment, and it will be required to justify any decision not to consult in the limited circumstances that I described.
I move amendment 34.
No members wish to comment on the amendments. Before I put the question, I remind members that, if any vote comes to the point at which I have to use a casting vote, I am not obliged to vote in any particular way other than to vote, as I usually do, on the basis of the merit of the arguments.
Amendment 34 agreed to.
Amendment 15 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Section 12—Persons with learning difficulties
Amendment 16 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 13—Quality of fundable further and higher education
Amendment 17 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Section 14—Credit and qualification framework
Amendment 35, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 36 and 37.
Amendments 35 to 37 address issues raised by the committee in paragraphs 74 to 78 of its report, which relate to the role of the council in adopting and promoting a credit and qualifications framework. The changes that we propose should, I think, make our intentions clearer. We expect the council to take a central role in promoting the use of a credit and qualifications framework, such as the Scottish credit and qualifications framework, among fundable bodies. We do not expect the council to have a central role in promoting such a framework more widely. For example, the council will not be expected to promote such a framework to other bodies, such as schools or private providers.
In addition, our amendments also clarify that the council is not solely responsible for choosing which framework to adopt. That should be done having regard to guidance from ministers and to the views of fundable bodies among other relevant stakeholders. The amendments will create the correct balance of responsibility in regard to the promotion of a framework such as the SCQF, which is becoming an increasingly important part of the Scottish further and higher education landscape.
I move amendment 35.
Amendment 35 agreed to.
Amendments 36 and 37 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 15 to 19 agreed to.
Section 20—Council to have regard to particular matters
Amendment 33, in the name of Christine May, is in a group on its own.
I draw members' attention to paragraph 73, on sustainable development, on the final page of the policy memorandum that accompanies the bill. It refers to the fact that the bill recognises the role that colleges and higher education institutions have to play in working towards a more sustainable Scotland. The bill ensures that fundable bodies make decisions at an appropriate level. However, the bill contains no reference to sustainable development. Amendment 33 seeks to amend section 20(1) so that the matters that councils should have regard to include sustainable development.
I move amendment 33.
I listened with interest to what Christine May had to say. I have no difficulty with the bill referring to sustainable development but I wonder whether that subject is not already covered by section 20(1)(b), which says that the council should have regard to
"issues affecting the economy of Scotland".
Would not that automatically include sustainable development?
Apart from that point, I am relatively relaxed about the amendment.
I support Christine May's amendment. I am not quite sure to which section Murdo Fraser referred.
I referred to section 20(1)(b)—not section 21—which is just above the point at which the amendment would insert the reference to sustainable development.
In that case, I think that there is cause for making specific mention of sustainable development.
I thank Christine May for lodging amendment 33. Sustainability is an important theme for the Executive. As members know, when I was a minister in another department, I had responsibility for introducing particular regulations and I know that sustainability features strongly in the funding councils' joint corporate plan and that both councils are involved in supporting various initiatives in the further and higher education sectors.
I am supportive of the suggestion that a reference to sustainability be included in the bill. There is no problem with that, but we have some concerns about the amendment, some of which have been prompted by the funding councils.
As I have said, the funding councils support sustainable development but they have expressed concern about the way in which listing sustainable development as a core consideration alongside other fundamental concerns, such as skills and economic development needs, might affect their operations.
There is also a concern about the way in which sustainable development is defined. As members know, that concern is not peculiar to the funding councils. Definitions are contested in various areas and there is a danger that the new council would end up having to spend a degree of its time debating the meaning of sustainable development in relation to everything else that it does. There is also some concern that sustainable development might not be relevant to every function of the council.
We want to recognise the importance of sustainable development without placing unnecessary burdens on the council. We need to set duties that recognise what the council can achieve.
If Christine May is agreeable, I propose to take her amendment away and come back with an amendment at stage 3 that will meet her objective by referring to the duty of the funding council to take account of and have regard to issues of sustainable development in its funding decisions. We will either incorporate that in those terms in the existing paragraphs under section 20(1) or add an additional paragraph—as we had occasion to do in other legislation—to enshrine the principle of sustainable development in the work of the council.
I ask Christine May to wind up and state whether she intends to press or withdraw amendment 33.
I am grateful to the minister for his comments and also to Murdo Fraser for his suggestion. Sustainable development is partly covered by section 20(1)(b), but not entirely. It is not about woolly socks and jumpers entirely; neither is it about the economy alone. It is not purely about green issues but about building communities and about building appropriate skills within those communities.
Having listened to what the minister said and to his proposal to bring back something at stage 3—when we will have another chance to consider the matter—I propose not to pursue amendment 33.
Amendment 33, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 18 and 19, in the name of the minister, were debated with amendment 7 last week.
Amendments 18 and 19 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
Section 21 agreed to.
Section 22—Consultation and collaboration
Amendment 20, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 30, 38, 39, 31, 21 and 22.
Amendment 20 has been lodged to clarify the nature of the duty on the council to consult. We wish to change that to be consistent with what I just said in relation to amendments 15 and 17. It will not always be appropriate to consult everybody listed in section 22(4). Amendment 20 will make it clear that the council must consult only when it considers that it is appropriate to do so.
Amendments 21 and 22 relate to section 22, which is on consultation and collaboration, and will give ministers the ability to alter, add to or remove from the list of bodies to be consulted or collaborated with, as listed in section 22(4). The Subordinate Legislation Committee highlighted the need for powers to amend and delete from the list of bodies. The Enterprise and Culture Committee also identified that point in its stage 1 report. As ever, we are pleased to be helpful and to take that point on board.
With amendments 38 and 39 we propose one other change to section 22, which will place an additional duty on the council to consult, where appropriate, bodies that are representative of staff and students in both sectors. That will include trade and student unions. Both councils, as members will appreciate, have close contact with those bodies. However, including that in statute will make clear our commitment that it is an essential part of the council's core business that should continue. Following the discussion last week about consultation with the National Union of Students, I have asked officials to investigate bringing forward an amendment at stage 3 that will refer more specifically to trade and student unions in that context.
I know that the aim of amendments 30 and 31 was raised by representatives of the council in evidence to the committee. However, amendments 30 and 31 would seriously alter the way in which the council wants to operate. The drafting of the bill deliberately requires the council in its operations to seek to secure the collaboration of the bodies that we list in section 22. The current duty to secure collaboration is not absolute because the council clearly could not do that itself. Instead, it makes it clear that ministers expect the council to seek to operate and to take forward all its activities in a collaborative manner. Amendment 30 seeks to remove that duty and instead require the funding council to collaborate only where it considers such an approach to be appropriate. It is probably critical that as a default position the council should always look to work collaboratively with all the organisations mentioned and others that have been listed as important to its operations. That should be the nature of the beast.
Meanwhile, amendment 31 seeks to put a duty on ministers to secure collaboration of the bodies in section 22(4). I have to say that that is already covered in section 22(3), which puts a duty on those bodies to provide the council with any information that it reasonably requires to carry out its functions. The two provisions come together in the bill to provide the council with very important tools and mechanisms to secure the collaboration that we seek. Whether ministers are able to secure collaboration in any other way is open to debate. In any case, I argue that collaboration per se cannot be imposed from above; it must be built from below among stakeholders to the system. Collaboration is best driven and secured from the bottom up.
That is why the duty should rightly be on the council to seek to secure collaboration with others. As we seek to make the council more collaborative in its workings and to impose in section 22(3) a duty on other bodies to provide the council with relevant information, I ask Fiona Hyslop not to move amendments 30 and 31.
I move amendment 20.
I feel that the other amendments in the group are sensible and especially welcome amendment 38.
However, in speaking to amendment 30, I should point out that paragraph 81 of the committee's stage 1 report states:
"Whilst we welcome the provisions in the Bill to encourage collaboration between the funding Council and others, we consider that the Council—and other organisations—should have a statutory duty to collaborate, but that the duty to secure collaboration should be ministerial. In essence, a statutory duty to collaborate is different from a statutory duty to secure collaboration."
I listened with interest to the minister's comments and certainly agree that no one can force collaboration from above. It is a two-way process and has to be entered into voluntarily. Indeed, in many ways, it has to be organic. Anyone who works in the further and higher education sector will know that the purpose of collaboration is to secure innovative solutions. People cannot be force-fed in that respect.
I acknowledge the minister's remark that, as a default position, the council should always seek to collaborate. However, we find the same problem not just in this bill but in bills in general. Parliament places duties on bodies to work with other organisations, but when there is a silo culture in Executive departments or in different councils, local authorities or bodies, it is extremely difficult to place a duty on one body to force another body to do something. The committee sensibly recognised that problem.
As far as amendment 31 is concerned, I believe that ministers should have a duty to secure collaboration. After all, as Esther Roberton quite clearly pointed out in her evidence to the committee at stage 1, it is not possible for the council to force collaboration. However, it is possible for ministers to ensure that those organisations that are included in the council's remit co-operate and collaborate. Amendments 30 and 31 respect the spirit and the letter of what the committee wanted at stage 1.
Amendment 38 will be a welcome addition to the bill, but I have one comment on it. Like me, the minister is a former full-time trade union official, so he will know about the disputes that can often occur between unions, never mind between unions and employers. Under amendment 38, the council will have to consult
"any body of persons which appears to it to be representative".
The word "appears" is wide open to interpretation—it could mean almost anything or almost nothing. I understand what the minister is trying to achieve and I support that but, to employ the minister's argument in relation to the term "sustainable development" in amendment 33, the amendment is not tightly enough defined. Although I do not advocate voting against amendment 38, it needs to be tightened up, perhaps at stage 3.
For clarification, are we dealing with amendments 21 and 22?
Yes. We are debating amendments 21 and 22, as well as amendments 30, 38, 39, 31 and 20.
I am grateful for that, because I wish to speak against amendment 22, although the minister did not refer to it in his comments.
Amendment 22 would give the Scottish ministers the power to modify by order sections 22(4) and 22(5). Section 22(4) is a list of the bodies with which the council should seek to collaborate. At present, under section 22(4)(j), ministers may add other names to the list, but amendments 21 and 22 will remove paragraph (j) and replace it with a power to modify the list. In other words, ministers could by order remove from the list any of the bodies that appear there. The committee should always be jealous of the rights and powers of the Parliament and, wherever possible, restrict ministers' powers, except where they are absolutely necessary. It would be adequate for ministers to have the power to add to the list, but I would be reluctant for ministers to have the power to remove from the list any of the bodies that currently appear there. I would be interested to hear the minister's views on that issue in his summing up.
In view of what Murdo Fraser has just said, I seek clarification on one point. Would an order that changed the list be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny?
The order would be subject to the negative procedure, so the Parliament would have the opportunity to scrutinise it. We were asked to alter the bill by the Subordinate Legislation Committee because we had given ourselves powers to add to the list, but not to amend it more generally. I suppose that one of the august bodies that are listed might cease to exist, at which point we would want to amend the list to delete a body rather than to add one. I assure Murdo Fraser that there is no hidden agenda to restrict the bodies that the funding council should consult.
I agree with Mike Watson's point. In the wake of the committee's deliberations on the matter, I asked my officials to consider the terminology that is used and the references to the obligations that will be imposed on the council to consult with trade and other—principally student—unions. I will come back to the committee on that. The wording, I am reliably informed by my colleagues, is required so that ministers fulfil their legal obligation to be seen to be acting reasonably—something that I know should go without question in these parts—hence the reference to "appears" in the amendment. The phrase
"appears to it to be representative"
is deemed to be most flexible in terms of any test of reasonableness that may subsequently be applied—so there you go. The substantive point is one with which I would concur. As I said in my preamble, it is one that I would want to come back to the committee on, so that the wording is as definitive as it can be while retaining at least the appearance of reasonableness.
I assume that Fiona Hyslop is having some second thoughts about her amendments. I have asked her not to move them, on the reasonable grounds that the duty that we seek to impose of seeking to collaborate is the most appropriate in the circumstances. Amendments 30 and 31, as Fiona Hyslop would recognise, would leave the default position as being that there was no such duty on the council to collaborate. I suspect that that is not what she wants.
Amendment 20 agreed to.
Amendment 30 moved—[Fiona Hyslop].
The question is, that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Baker, Mr Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Abstentions
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 6, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 30 disagreed to.
Amendments 38 and 39 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 31 not moved.
Amendment 21 moved—[Allan Wilson].
The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Mr Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Against
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 21 agreed to.
Amendment 22 moved—[Allan Wilson].
The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Baker, Mr Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Against
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Abstentions
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 22 agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
Section 23—General powers
Amendment 23, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 24 and 25.
Amendment 23 is a technical amendment that removes doubt about whether there is an absolute prohibition on the council issuing guarantees on indemnities, and it allows for that with ministerial consent. That doubt, which is also present in the 1992 act, has caused some practical difficulties for the existing councils, as many standard commercial contracts include a requirement for indemnities. In practical terms, ministers will delegate authority to the council for such standard commercial contracts through the financial memorandum. The committee will note that, under the amendments, giving any guarantee or indemnity and creating any trust or security will no longer be linked to property that is derived from Scottish ministers' funding. Specific consent will be required before the council can charge any asset or security or, with the exception of the standard commercial contract, give any guarantee, indemnity or letter of comfort or incur any other contingent liability.
I move amendment 23.
Amendment 23 agreed to.
Amendments 24 and 25 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
After section 23
Amendment 32, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, is in a group on its own.
Amendment 32 raises an issue that is of concern to the higher and further education bodies in relation to another bill that is before the Parliament. Members who have followed the progress of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill will be aware of the concern about the third-party right of direction and the definition of what organisations are charities. I wrote to the minister when I wanted to lodge the amendment in order to raise the issue. The Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill contains clear directions for the council over further and higher education bodies, and we need to send out a strong message and ask the minister to liaise with Malcolm Chisholm to ensure that colleges, in particular, do not fall foul of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill because of what we are doing in this bill.
Because of their constitutions, universities are autonomous bodies that have more protection than colleges have. I know that colleges have concerns about the audit inspection of accounts, which is a provision of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill. I would be interested to hear the minister's comments. We would not want—either through the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill or through the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill—to put the charitable status of any further education institution in jeopardy. I am sure that the Executive would not want to do that either.
The Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill is the most appropriate place in which to address such concerns. However, I lodged amendment 32 to raise those concerns now. If necessary, the amendment could be regarded as an insurance policy to ensure that further education colleges in particular are not affected by third-party right of direction that then affects their future charitable status.
I move amendment 32.
I am grateful to Fiona Hyslop for raising this issue. She is right to do so and has identified a genuine concern. I will be interested to hear the minister's response.
However, for two reasons, I do not think that amendment 32 is appropriate. First, the correct forum in which to deal with the issue is the debate on the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill and not the debate on the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill. I understand that that is the view of the Association of Scottish Colleges.
The second reason has to do with parliamentary procedure. The bill that we are discussing today is ahead of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill in the queue. Referring to a bill that has yet to reach the end of stage 1 would be inappropriate. We do not know whether the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill will ever become law. The chances are that it will, but it might not.
However, the issue that Fiona Hyslop raises is important and we should address it.
I wanted to make broadly the same points as Murdo Fraser has made. I will not repeat them; all I will say is that I agree with him.
I welcome amendment 32, which is an entirely legitimate probing amendment to elicit a response on the Executive's stance on this issue. The amendment also gives us an opportunity to explore the issue in committee.
I can give Fiona Hyslop complete assurance that the Executive is well aware of the issue. Not only Ms Hyslop but the Association of Scottish Colleges and Universities Scotland have written to ministers recently about the prospective implications of the definition of charities in the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill—implications that might militate against the educational institutions.
Officials in my department are working with the team that is working on the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill to establish precisely what can be done to protect the interests of universities and colleges. However, as Fiona Hyslop would acknowledge and as Murdo Fraser has said, agreeing to amendment 32 would clearly be bad practice procedurally. The correct place for such a change would be the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill. I am sure that Fiona Hyslop would agree that it would not be good practice for a bill to deal with changes that might appear in future legislation. I would argue that the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill cannot confidently predict the way in which Parliament will determine the separate issues to be set out in the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill. Because of the concerns over the potential impact of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill, changes could be made to the provision to which amendment 32 relates. We should not pre-empt that process.
Amendment 32 is a legitimate probing amendment. We are trying to find a solution to the issue that it raises. If Fiona Hyslop has continuing concerns, it would probably be best for her to lodge amendments directly to the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill rather than to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill. I therefore urge Fiona Hyslop to withdraw amendment 32.
I assure Fiona Hyslop that the office of the Deputy First Minister will continue to liaise with her and the committee to keep everyone advised on progress and on the implications for the higher and further education sector, if any, of the definition of charities in the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill. I assure Fiona Hyslop that we take the issue seriously—not least because of the possible financial implications for the institutions concerned.
I thank the minister for his assurances—there are indeed major financial implications. As a former business manager who is used to timetabling pieces of legislation, and as a former member of the Procedures Committee, I acknowledge that we would not want to set the precedent that has been mentioned. However, it is appropriate to raise the issue during discussions on the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill, because it will greatly affect the sector. We have to be alert to the appropriate ways of addressing issues when different bills are running concurrently.
I look forward to further communication with the minister and I will not press amendment 32. However, we obviously have to keep a vigilant eye on the progress of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill.
Amendment 32, by agreement, withdrawn.
Sections 24 to 30 agreed to.
Schedule 3
Amendments of Enactments
Amendment 26, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 27.
Amendment 26 modifies the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992. It is a purely stylistic amendment and maintains the consistency of style used in the 1992 act. It has no effect on the substance of the bill.
Amendment 27 relates to schedule 3, which deals with the consequential amendments to other legislation necessary as a result of the bill. The Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Act 2001 refers to sections 4 and 40 of the 1992 act to define "publicly funded institution" for the purposes of the 2001 act. Sections 4 and 40 of the 1992 act will be repealed by section 6(2) of schedule 3 to the bill. The equivalent provisions in the bill are those in section 11. The 2001 act will therefore refer to section 11 of the bill when it is enacted.
I move amendment 26.
Amendment 26 agreed to.
Amendment 27 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Section 31 agreed to.
Section 32—Orders and regulations
Amendment 28, in the name of the minister, is in a group on its own.
Amendment 28 is a response to the recommendations of the Enterprise and Culture Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee, which we have discussed. It will mean that the order-making power under sections 5(7) and 7(1) will use the affirmative procedure. That will provide an appropriate level of accountability for any decision to create or remove fundable bodies or to change the definition of fundable further and higher education.
I move amendment 28.
I want to express the gratitude of all members of this committee and, I suspect, the Subordinate Legislation Committee, to the minister for honouring the promise that he made when we raised the matter with him originally.
Amendment 28 agreed to.
Amendment 5 not moved.
Amendment 29 moved—[Allan Wilson]—and agreed to.
Section 32, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 33 and 34 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
That ends our stage 2 consideration of the bill. It is fair to say that the bulk of the committee's stage 1 recommendations were implemented at stage 2. I thank the minister for his co-operation.
I am happy to liaise with the committee between now and stage 3 on the matters that we have discussed at stage 2.