Official Report 1362KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20484, in the name of Ben Macpherson, on the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. I call the minister, Ben Macpherson, to speak to and move the motion.
19:59
I am pleased to open this stage 3 debate, and I want to start by thanking my predecessor, Graeme Dey, for the remarkable amount of work that he did and for putting in the necessary effort to develop the bill and take it through most of stage 1.
I also thank the committee and all stakeholders who have given their views, time and expertise to shape and refine the bill. I hope that many of them now see that they have positively influenced the bill’s provisions and that it is now a better bill because of them.
I also thank MSP colleagues from across the chamber for their thoughtful and robust contributions, not only today but throughout the process of the bill, and I am grateful for their willingness to engage over recent months. All of those discussions, and the amendments that we have agreed together, have strengthened the bill.
Furthermore, I thank everyone at Skills Development Scotland, the Scottish Funding Council, Student Awards Agency Scotland and the unions that represent their staff. I know that, for staff at Skills Development Scotland and its board, this is an unsettling time, but I want them to know how much their work is valued and that their contributions will continue to be impactful and appreciated as the bill is implemented and once its implementation is complete. All the staff who are moving from Skills Development Scotland to the Scottish Funding Council will continue to make a significant difference for learners and employers.
It is good to hear the minister’s thanks to Skills Development Scotland, but will he acknowledge that the Scottish Government left those working for Skills Development Scotland essentially in limbo for two years while it decided what it was going to do with the Withers report? That is an entirely unsatisfactory set of circumstances, and I hope that the Scottish Government never again repeats it and leaves people, an agency and jobs in limbo in that manner.
I appreciate the member’s point. That is not my understanding of the situation, but, of course, I was not the minister during that period. However, I can say that there has been significant engagement between the Scottish Government, Skills Development Scotland and the Scottish Funding Council on engaging with staff, and that will continue at pace through the bill’s implementation. All staff involved and their professionalism and their commitment have helped build the system that we have today, and they will all be central to delivering the change that we need in the years ahead.
Speaking of stakeholders, I want to take a moment to commend Fiona Drouet for seeing the opportunity presented by the bill to further her EmilyTest campaign and ensure that no family has to experience the loss of a child attending college or university as a result of gender-based violence. Fiona challenged us all to do more on that vital issue, and I thank her and Pam Gosal MSP, who supported her, for doing so. The amendment that was passed at stage 3, and which we worked on together, goes as far as we can to prevent such violence in the future, and I hope that it achieves its purpose.
Stage 3 is, of course, the point at which Parliament must decide whether the bill provides the right framework for the reform that so many agreed is needed. I know that views differ on whether the focus of the bill should have been to strengthen how our education and skills system is currently constructed or to undertake structural reform. I have thought about that issue very carefully since taking up post, and the firm conclusion that I have reached—and it is the strong position of the Government—is that we can do both, and that we must do both.
I accept that not every member will agree with every provision in the bill, but I hope that we can all recognise the care with which the bill has been developed, the evidence on which it is based and the genuine efforts that have been made to listen and respond to concerns during the whole process.
The minister has said that he has thought about the bill a lot. I ask him to put on the record whether, at any point since he became minister, he gave any consideration to dropping the bill at this stage and potentially coming back—if he is still in post or if his party is still in government—with a new bill in a new Parliament. That is what a number of people were calling for. There was an opportunity to press the pause button and look at the bill afresh in a new Parliament.
I was educated in our system in Scotland to believe in the importance of critical thinking, and that will be crucial in the period ahead. Indeed, I apply it to all my decisions as a minister and as an MSP.
It was, of course, prudent for me to consider the bill with a fresh perspective. Through the engagement that I had and the reassurance that I was given, I came to the firm view that this is a necessary piece of legislation. We must get ready for what is coming, we must continue to progress, and we must build on the expert evidence that is presented to us, and which was presented to us in the Withers review.
The bill offers a sound and balanced foundation for a simpler, more joined-up tertiary education and training system, one that can continue to evolve in partnership with this Parliament, the education sector, the business community, the people whom we serve, and, of course, the staff who work to support learners and innovation every day.
One of the missed opportunities with this bill was the opportunity to fully implement the recommendations from the von Prondzynski review in 2012. Some of us attempted to do that at stage 2, but the minister was of the view that that would challenge the Office for National Statistics classification too much.
Can the minister outline how he will continue to keep an eye on the concerns that were expressed at stage 2, by members and by others, about the accountability and scrutiny that is required of the governance of both further and higher education to ensure that our institutions are, as von Prondzynski recommended, actually governed effectively?
I thank the member for her intervention and her engagement on these matters, not just at stage 2 but more generally. The Government has considered what more it can do through the bill, while also being mindful of ONS classification. We have constantly to strike a balance in that regard. I refer the member to the measures that we have taken on governance. I think that they are appropriate at this point, but I would be happy to engage further as we proceed.
As I and the previous minister have articulated, the bill is about making the system simpler and more efficient. It aims to provide a better experience for learners, whether they are retraining or are at the beginning of the pathway that they are undertaking, and, through that, reducing poverty and growing the economy.
We have included in the bill a number of measures that are important for our apprenticeship system—for example, putting it on a statutory footing to advance parity of esteem. Outwith the bill, we have undertaken work to continue the development of graduate apprenticeships, which have been mentioned throughout the stage 3 proceedings. A shift towards a more expansive approach to work-based learning will allow us to enhance all relevant opportunities, from school through to university.
We have also made significant progress on fair work, in particular through working with the Scottish Green Party—I am grateful to Ross Greer for all the engagement that we have had on those points. I refer to the changes that we have made in that space.
Importantly—I will finish on this, Deputy Presiding Officer—we have also considered the need for all staff involved to be part of the process of implementation, should Parliament pass the bill. Last week, I met with trade union representatives to hear their concerns, and we will have regular dialogue into the next stage. I expect public bodies to do the same. I give a reassurance that services for learners and employers will be maintained throughout the transition period and that there will be no erosion of support as changes are implemented.
At its heart, this bill—this journey—to transform Scotland’s education and skills landscape is not simply about processes or structures; it is about people, and the people whom we serve. The technological change that is coming will be profound, and we need to get our systems organised to meet the rapidly approaching challenges of the next quarter of the 21st century. The bill is an important step in that journey, and I ask Parliament to support the motion in my name.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
20:08
I thank the many organisations and businesses that have provided helpful briefings ahead of the stage 3 debate, and I also thank them for their work at stage 2. There has been concern out there about the potential impact of the bill on those organisations and businesses, and it has been clear, from speaking to them, that assurances have not been forthcoming.
However, I welcome the constructive way in which the minister has engaged since his appointment, when he inherited the bill from Graeme Dey. I also welcome the Government’s acceptance of amendments at stage 2, and its engagement with a number of amendments that I lodged at stage 2 and which ministers have taken forward at stage 3.
As I stated during the stage 1 debate,
“When Scottish ministers introduced the bill, we on the Conservative benches were open to the reasons and rationale behind it.”—[Official Report, 25 September 2025; c 71.]
However, as we have looked at the bill, it has become clear that it is not going to deliver what ministers suggest that it will.
It is worth reflecting on why the Scottish Government decided to legislate in this area. The independent review of the skills delivery landscape by James Withers in 2023 highlighted the need to focus on a new vision that meets the challenges of future needs. Principally, it looked towards the need to deliver flexibility across post-school learning systems in order to achieve genuine agility and to ensure that learners at all stages of their lives, across Scotland, have the opportunity to gain skills and take up potential apprenticeship opportunities.
I am sorry to say that the reality is that the bill does not reflect real delivery of the Withers’ report. From the outset, we have challenged ministers to go further and for the bill to be more radical. As Russell Findlay outlined two weeks ago, the Scottish Conservatives want to see economic growth at the heart of every Scottish Government decision, with a Government that is always on the side of the entrepreneur and the innovator and that is ambitious and aspirational for the small businesses that make our country tick.
We want our apprenticeship system to be more responsive and agile. That is what we have been working to try to achieve. The Scottish Conservatives want to see an apprenticeship system that works with businesses to deliver more apprenticeship places. Crucially, we want to address, rather than simply discuss, the huge skills shortages in the sectors that we hear about week in and week out.
That is why we wanted the bill to go further to empower sectors to create more opportunities and focus on a demand-led approach. We wanted a bill that would help to provide training and retraining opportunities in Scottish firms, which would be at the heart of shaping skills development, as well as the courses that will be crucial for a host of sectors if we are to realise the potential of many growth areas in our economy. The Scottish Conservatives wanted the bill to do more than simply change how apprenticeships are administered in Scotland. We hoped that it would be an opportunity to seriously address the growing skills shortages and gaps that exist across so many of our key sectors, which are vital for the future of our economy and this country’s prosperity.
I turn to the concerns that were raised during the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s scrutiny of the bill. We on the Conservative benches continue to have serious concerns about the potential transfer costs. I note that the minister’s letter to the committee estimates that the
“total cost over these six years now ranges from £2.1 million to £28.1 million, with a central estimate of £15.1 million”.
That remains a significant concern. I want every Scottish apprenticeship pound to go to the delivery of more apprenticeship places and opportunities, rather than expensive structural changes. I am also disappointed that, during the debate, the Government has not accepted the need for more and better transparency around the apprenticeship levy.
We on the Conservative benches also agree with the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, which we have been working with. It believes that the bill lacks a systemic evidenced-based approach, and that there has been insufficient engagement with key partners, especially local authorities and employers. There are financial risks to successful existing programmes such as foundation apprenticeships, and the bill has the potential to negatively impact young people, particularly the most disadvantaged and those who are furthest away from the education system. The concerns that the association has expressed have not been taken forward. I hope that ministers will not see the bill as an end point; work needs to be done to protect apprenticeship places, especially foundation apprenticeships, as has been raised during the debate.
The Scottish Conservatives hoped that the bill would be a genuine opportunity for a culture shift across our education and skills system. We hoped that current working relationships within our college sector, as part of the wider tertiary sector, could be more collaborative, so that colleges could be empowered to become the drivers of change, rather than merely receiving funding. Empowering our college sector to deliver opportunities in local areas needs to be reconsidered. Audit Scotland has said that the college sector has seen a 17 per cent reduction in real-terms funding in the past three years alone, which has resulted in colleges having to deliver significant annual savings, with fewer students and fewer lecturers.
The Scottish Conservatives will work to make sure that the next Government and the Parliament in its next session genuinely develop a skills bill. We would propose bold and practical measures to invest in our colleges, fix Scotland’s broken apprenticeship system, address skills shortages and allow local employers to shape training to match their workforce needs, as others in different parts of the United Kingdom can. Sadly, this bill has been a missed opportunity for the Government and the Parliament to take forward significant legislation that would deliver for our skills sector. That is why the Scottish Conservatives will not be able to support the bill at decision time.
20:14
I reiterate my thanks to the Minister for Higher and Further Education for the way that he has approached the bill, which has been very useful. There has been clear engagement, and I can see some differences between the bill that we have in front of us and the one that he first examined. Likewise, I do not think that the bill is without merit. There is strong sense in bringing funding streams together so that money can be used more flexibly.
However, we cannot support the bill as it is. The advantage of a stage 3 debate happening immediately after the stage 3 amendment process is that none of the arguments will be entirely new, and the fundamental point that I have been making this afternoon and this evening is that structural reform that is embarked on without clarity about what is sought or to be achieved and without strategy has risks, at least, and can be damaging, at worst.
To put it the other way round, I note that the minister said in his opening remarks that he hopes that the reforms will bring about the changes in the skills system that we all want to see, but we do not know what those are. We do not know what success looks like, and we do not know what the skills and apprenticeship systems will look like or feel like or what difference will be made as a result of the reforms. We will not know whether the bill has succeeded because we do not have that clarity from the Government. How do we know that the structures in the bill are right? How do we know that the form of organisation will enable delivery?
Let us be clear that we need change. Trade bodies and individual businesses have set out that a number of changes should be made, and we need urgent change, but that is the last thing that this Government is doing. It is 10 years since the enterprise and skills review that started much of this work off, it is three since the Withers review, and it is going to take another three years for the bill to be fully implemented. It is all taking far too long. The Government would do well to listen to the voices of those who have clear views about how flexibility, upskilling and reskilling can be implemented now. Those are the urgent priorities that are in front of us.
We need clarity about skills funding, which is static, despite money being received through the skills levy. The bill will do nothing to increase transparency for the employers or sectors that are looking for information on how those funds are being delivered. We have had cuts to the few measures, such as the workforce development fund, that have provided the flexibility beyond the apprenticeship system that is so valued by business. Furthermore, we have seen a gutting of the colleges’ ability to undertake anything that looks like flexibility. There have been cutbacks to the provision in the credit system, which is far too inflexible and does not enable colleges to deliver the flexibility that is needed.
However, it is not just that the Government has been slow and unclear. One of my fundamental issues is that this Government has an extremely poor track record of delivering structural reform, particularly in the absence of any clear strategy. To see that, we only need to look at the college sector. Many of our problems have arisen because of the poorly executed reform of our colleges, which has again been due to a lack of clarity. There is an insistence on full-time courses rather than part-time courses, yet, when we look at the economic needs that we have in front of us, we can see that flexible part-time courses are the training and skills provision that many employers are crying out for.
The bill does not even touch on many of the elements that Withers set out. There was a really important discussion about regional structures, which was the subject of a central recommendation from Withers, but there is nothing in the bill on how we can deliver regional approaches, despite the fact that they clearly deliver flexibility. Nor is there any sense of how we can have microcredentials or skills passports, which are also features of the flexible system that we want.
Above all else, the biggest fear is that we have a lack of clear industry voices in the system. It is hard to reach any conclusion other than that industry voices will be diluted by the measures that we see in the bill. With just two seats on the Scottish Funding Council—in a body that has a remit far broader than simply to deal with skills—it is difficult to see how industry will be able to shape, lead and take forward the skills agenda.
I am out of time. The bill is a missed opportunity. That is not to say that it will not have benefits, but, because of that missed opportunity and because of the lack of clarity, the Scottish Labour Party cannot support the bill tonight.
20:20
The Greens will support the bill this evening, for the reasons that I outlined at stage 1 although, at that point, I expressed some scepticism that I will come on to.
I begin by thanking the minister and the bill team for their engagement throughout the process. I also thank the minister’s predecessor, Graeme Dey, for his extensive engagement before he handed over the portfolio.
The Greens agree with the core premise of the bill. My starting assumption was that I, and Parliament, could not ignore what the reports from Audit Scotland and James Withers said about the Scottish Funding Council and Skills Development Scotland and, crucially, about the need for greater alignment within the system. Having more of that system under one roof should result in greater alignment.
Ministerial direction is the other key part. I have a lot of sympathy with what Daniel Johnson said, and we agreed on much during the stage 1 debate. What has consistently been missing from the system is clear ministerial direction and a clear strategy. We had a purpose and principles document from the Government that failed to set out a clear strategy across the sectors. We have a national strategy for economic transformation that was neither strategic nor transformative and a national performance framework that simply is not used and has sat gathering dust on the shelf from the moment that it was published. That is where the need for alignment is at its greatest—at ministerial level.
I apologise if the member has moved on from the subject but, if we do not have a clear strategy, how will we know that the outcomes will be met?
In part, ministers will have a far greater ability to direct the strategy when more of the objectives and purposes are sitting under one roof. There is a need for greater ministerial direction, and some of the amendments that we have made to the bill should also aid that greater strategic alignment.
I will quote from paragraph 417 of the report by James Withers, where he says that
“there must be a clear articulation of the areas that are a national priority. This goes beyond signalling ‘economic transformation’ or ‘net zero’ into a specific articulation, aligned to strategic policy intentions, of the sectors and occupations that will be critical to their delivery and their workforce needs.”
In essence, he calls for fewer buzzwords and more clear strategic direction, and his point about net zero is one obvious example of that. We need far more people who are trained to install and maintain heat pumps, we must transition the existing workforce who deal with gas boilers, and we need to increase the workforce. However, during my party’s time in government, I saw how hard it was to get the system to line up behind that objective.
We are also trying to legislate for cultural change because part of the difficulty in getting the whole sector to line up behind that objective comes from the cultural differences between the organisations. Again, I think that will be part of the value of having everything sitting under one roof. It was clear in the Audit Scotland report in particular that the different cultures in the two organisations led to significant barriers to achieving the kind of alignment that Withers and Audit Scotland asked for and which I believe Parliament expects. That is one reason why we support the bill: bringing more parts of the system under one roof should reduce the risk of the sort of culture clash that we saw between the two organisations.
We wrestled with similar challenges during the progress of the Education (Scotland) Act 2025 and the need to replace the Scottish Qualifications Authority. Legislating to change culture is not easy, but we have made a number of amendments to the bill, particularly those dealing with the membership of the council and the apprenticeship committee. It is not perfect and there was a range of views, so we needed to compromise, but I think that we have established an underpinning structure that should allow for the kind of cohesive culture that will, in turn, create the alignment that we all expect to get from the system.
20:24
The context for the bill is the Audit Scotland report from some years ago. That report was scathing in its criticism of all those involved in the sector and of the inability of SDS and the Scottish Funding Council to come together to agree a strategy. It set out the failure of ministers to direct that change and ensure an integrated approach from those two bodies and others. That is the foundation of this debate.
As well as clearly setting out the need for a single source of funding, the Withers report recommended many other things that have been completely lost in this debate. The minister’s predecessor was passionate about creating a careers service that would drive change throughout the whole system, because, if we can get young people at school to make the right decisions about their future as a result of proper advice at the right time, we can provide parity of esteem and transform the whole skills landscape. However, that has been completely lost in the political debate—the debate might be happening somewhere else, but I am not aware of it.
We have been banging on about the need for parity of esteem for years, but we have failed to deliver it. Skills planning, which Stephen Kerr talked about at length today, was a critical recommendation in the Withers report, but we are not really debating those issues. That is one of my regrets.
Big-bang reorganisations often introduce paralysis, uncertainty and fear of change. They mean that staff are thinking about their jobs and looking over their shoulders rather than driving forward change for the future. That all happens as a result of big-bang reorganisations, which rarely deliver the returns that we want. We are talking about tens of millions of pounds for the reforms in the bill. Will we get the returns that we want from the changes?
There are many public sector bodies, so we cannot bring them all under one roof. We need to have separate management. If we think that we can get integration, joint partnership and systems thinking only by bringing all those bodies under one roof, we are kidding ourselves. We need to get leaders to drive change across boundaries and ensure that everybody under their umbrella is working together and with all the other public sector bodies.
My other concern—I am giving a long list of reasons why the bill is terrible—relates to the capacity of the Funding Council. We know that the Funding Council has been under the cosh and has had to deal with all the crises in the higher education sector and in colleges. Does it have the headspace to deal with the additional responsibilities that are set out in the bill?
From what I have said, members will know that I would not have started from here or gone down this route, but we are where we are. I am afraid to say that, if we go back and say no to the bill, that might cause more chaos in the sector. What would that mean for SDS? Would it mean that another set of reforms would come forward that might threaten it in the future, or would it be secure for ever? What would it mean for the leadership of that organisation?
It is my understanding that, just last month, SDS wrote to the minister to set out alternative views and opinions on possible reforms that would not be as costly and disruptive as those that the Scottish Government has proposed. Should those views not be considered in this debate and as we go forward?
Douglas Ross is probably right, but I fear that it is too late to do that in this debate—we are so far down the track now. I hope that there is pragmatic partnership between SDS and others. I sense a change in that organisation, so I hope that it works pragmatically to make the transition as smooth as possible. I have been impressed by the personnel who have been appointed to the Funding Council to take forward the reforms. Some of the individuals are really talented and can make the best of this situation. As I said, going back might create even more uncertainty.
For all those reasons, and given the amendments that I have secured today, which will give employers and business a louder voice, we will reluctantly vote for the bill.
In the last couple of seconds of my speech, I want to thank the clerks and officials. The officials have been outstanding in giving good, sound advice. I also thank the SFC and the SDS, particularly the staff who have been through hell in the past few years; the Scottish Chamber of Commerce and the formidable Liz Cameron, who one should never cross too readily; and Universities Scotland, as well as a myriad of other organisations that have been excellent in providing advice.
I just hope that the bill works. It had better work, because we need to get the skills landscape right and we need to train people with the right skills for the economy. If we do not do that, the repercussions will be even greater.
We move to the open debate.
20:30
As in the stage 1 debate, I thank the committee clerks, the witnesses, the ministers—former and present—and the officials. I also thank my fellow committee members for their work in scrutinising the bill. As members can imagine, there was more work to be done as we moved from the general principles of the bill to the nitty-gritty, so I add a little more thanks to reflect that.
I am disappointed—but not surprised—that some members are not supporting the bill. I am not surprised, because, in the two years that I have been on the committee, I do not think that Labour has yet supported a stage 1 general principles report. It does not matter what the subject of a bill is—Labour will amend it a great deal, but it will not support it.
However, I will repeat what I said at the start of my stage 1 speech on the bill. So often in the chamber, we talk about Scotland’s future and building a better country for the next generation. The bill is not just about building a future for the next generation but about ensuring that they have the skills and knowledge to build their own future.
Of course, the bill is not only about young folk. There are plenty of people who enter or re-enter tertiary education and training later in life for all sorts of reasons. Goodness knows that there are plenty of people in the Aberdeen area who have had to reskill and retrain in recent years, first because of the downturn that was caused by oil prices being too low and then because of the downturn that was caused by the windfall tax because oil prices were briefly too high.
Thankfully, the Scottish Government has stepped up to support training and retraining in our city, not least through its oil and gas transition training fund and by helping to fund North East Scotland College’s energy transition skills hub. That means that, whether the workers in my Aberdeen Donside constituency work in oil and gas or in renewables, they will continue to have the skills that are needed to power our nation and economy.
Let us get back to the bill that is in front of us. The bill will ensure that funding goes where it matters most: to supporting skills, to driving innovation, to ensuring that our economy has the talented workforce that it needs and to giving every learner the opportunity to thrive. Our colleges, universities and other training providers are tasked with equipping people—whether they are young people who are leaving school or those who want to retrain and take a new path—with the skills and qualifications that they can use to find their way in life, whether they use those to find a good-quality, well-paid job, to establish their own business or even to find a voluntary role. Folk want to contribute to our economy and to our society. The bill will help them to get the skills that they need.
Colleges, universities, apprenticeships and other training all help folk to improve their skill set. Therefore, it seems appropriate that I should talk about how the bill has itself been improved since it was first introduced. I will list some of the amendments that have been included in the bill. The bill now allows for a review of the credit-based funding model for colleges. There will now be a requirement for governing body members and senior officers at institutions to declare conflicts of interest.
More will be done to ensure that further and higher education institutions operate with transparency and accountability as a condition of funding. More will be done to protect whistleblowers and to ensure that there is better engagement with trade unions and students. New powers will also be introduced for the SFC to limit fees for apprenticeship managing agents.
Let us get on with it. Let us get the bill passed. Let us modernise how money gets to colleges, universities and training providers. Let us ensure that folk can get the skills and training that they need. Let us support our learners to better themselves so that they can go on to build a better Scotland.
20:34
Far be it from me to use my limited time to stand up and defend the Labour Party, but I have to take exception to what Jackie Dunbar said. She commented that, in her two years on the Education, Children and Young People Committee, she cannot remember the Labour Party supporting a bill at stage 1. It has done. It supported Daniel Johnson’s recent member’s bill and it also—when Pam Duncan-Glancy was the Labour member on the committee—supported the Education (Scotland) Bill, which was a Government bill that Labour said needed to be heavily amended.
Interestingly, however, the SNP members on the committee, along with every other member of the committee, could not support the general principles of the bill that we are considering today in our committee report. We had serious concerns, and the committee took the very unusual step of not recommending to Parliament that we should or should not support the general principles of the bill. It is important that we get that on the record.
I will give way to Pam Duncan-Glancy.
I thank the member for taking this intervention, as I tried and hoped to get to my mouse quickly enough to intervene on Jackie Dunbar earlier. I wanted to ask her to reflect on her comments about the Labour Party, on my membership and time on the committee and on the fact that we supported the general principles of the bills that Douglas Ross mentioned. It is important for Parliament to reflect that the committee stages are an important part of the scrutiny of legislation and that, throughout the parliamentary process, all members reserve the right to continue to seek amendments and consider how they will vote on a bill at the end of the day, after the full process has been gone through.
I agree with Pam Duncan-Glancy’s points.
To stick with this issue for a little longer, I say to Jackie Dunbar that she should be less concerned about the motives or background of those who are opposing the bill and more concerned about those who are supporting it. I say this with all due respect, but the Liberal Democrats support the bill even though their spokesperson has given a long list of reasons why it is “terrible”. He said that the Liberal Democrats “reluctantly” support the bill and are hoping that it works. The Government has cobbled together enough MSPs to back the bill, but that is not a ringing endorsement of what is contained in what should be a very important piece of legislation. The Government should reflect on that.
There are many reasons why I remain unconvinced about the bill, and I think that the minister would have been well served to withdraw it. I am not standing for election in a few months’ time, but I am not sure that anyone who is standing will knock on a door and find someone embracing them with a hug to say, “Thank you for getting the tertiary education bill through Parliament. Thank you for costing the taxpayer £15.1 million”—although it could be as high as £28 million. If there is anyone who thinks that, we should have got them into the committee, because we did not find any enthusiasm for the bill at the committee.
I will again quote Willie Rennie. I think that, at one point, he said that the reaction was, “Meh”—it was a shrug of the shoulders. We struggled to find people who said, “In the limited parliamentary time that you have available as elected members, go for this. This is the priority that the education committee should be taking forward.” We have missed an opportunity to get the bill correct and to get something more important on the statute book.
As well as the lack of people giving encouraging evidence to the Education, Children and Young People Committee, the Economy and Fair Work Committee heard from a number of industry bodies that the bill would be a distraction from changes that could be undertaken now and with urgency. Does the member think that the Economy and Fair Work Committee’s evidence should also be reflected on?
It should, and the Education, Children and Young People Committee put that in our report, too.
My time is almost up, but I want to raise a couple more issues. I have serious concerns about the capacity of the SFC. There might be very good people involved at the SFC, but their eye has been off the ball on a number of big issues that we as a Parliament would have expected them to have been all over.
On ONS classification, I have been through stage 1, stage 2 amendments, stage 3 amendments and now the stage 3 debate, but I still do not know what the tipping point will be, if there are more changes in legislation in future, at which universities’ ONS classification will be in danger. During the process, the minister has repeatedly been unable to give an answer on that. Here we are, potentially voting for a bill tonight, and we still do not know.
I cannot support the bill tonight. We had an opportunity in Parliament to do it a lot better, but the Government did not take it. However, the bill will be passed tonight, because the Greens and Liberal Democrats will support the SNP. As seems to happen in this place, we will then get a round of applause from those on the Government benches. I ask them to question what they are clapping for, because I am not sure what they think the bill is supposed to deliver and will deliver. In years to come, we will think that it has been a missed opportunity and that we could have done far better.
We move to winding-up speeches. There is a little time in hand.
20:39
In my opening speech, Roz McCall intervened on me with what I think was a very fair challenge. If there is no clear strategic direction, how are we going to achieve alignment? Having sat here for six and a half hours at that point, I could not find the word that I was looking for in my brain, but the word was “function”. If we gather all the relevant functions under one roof, it makes it far easier to achieve that alignment.
That still requires clear strategic direction, though. We can legislate for structure, but it is much harder to legislate for strategy. Indeed, in many respects, Parliament should not legislate for strategy. It is for voters at each election to decide what Government they elect and for the Government to set its strategy, not for us in Parliament to legislate to bind future Governments. However, we can legislate to set some direction on that strategy.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will, in just a second.
I point to an amendment of mine that was agreed to at stage 2 of the bill that requires the SFC to have due regard to the Government’s economic, social and environmental objectives. That was about as far as we could go in legislating on strategy, but we can resolve structural issues through legislation.
I accept Ross Greer’s point about function, to a degree. However, there is also the SFC’s ability to combine functions. If we look at the experience of the university and college sectors, which was the raison d’être of the SFC, I do not think that we see parity between those two sectors. The college sector is very much the poorer cousin of its higher education peer.
To some extent, Daniel Johnson makes a fair point, but I do not think that that is all on the SFC. A lot of that ultimately comes down to decisions made by Governments and Parliaments over a number of not just years but decades. The bill has also served as a way for us to strengthen the governance structures of the SFC.
There is one other area that I want to touch on before closing. I said at stage 1 that the Greens support the bill in part because we agree with the core premise, but also because of the opportunity to use the bill to address other issues. I think that we have been successful in some of those regards.
Many of our debates on the groupings of amendments at stage 2 were dominated by questions of fair work and standards for apprentices and for the staff of the education institutions. We have talked about the fact that nine of the previous 10 years saw industrial action in our college sector and the fact that many graduate teaching assistants in our universities are, in effect, working for less than the minimum wage because of how poor their salary is and how many hours they are, in practice, expected to work above what they are contracted to work. I think that we all want to address those issues, but we wrestled over the extent to which we can put funding conditions in legislation without straying into areas that are clearly reserved, such as employment law. It was not just about whether we can act; it was about whether we can act in and via legislation.
My starting point was the fact that, in 2021, we applied conditions to Scottish Government grants and contracts in relation to payment of at least the real living wage. The Government quite fairly put it back to me that that was not set out in legislation but was achieved through a change of policy. I am glad that, on that point, as the minister said, we came to an agreement, which was announced last week, to expand that approach in further and higher education.
Two fair work criteria are currently conditions of funding: the real living wage and appropriate worker voice—that is, trade union recognition. Now, the other five criteria will also be requirements. Those criteria are investing in workforce development, no inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts—I would suggest that all zero-hours contracts are inappropriate, but there you are—action to tackle the gender pay gap and create a more diverse and inclusive workforce, offering flexible and family-friendly working practices for all workers from day 1 of employment, and opposing the use of fire-and-rehire practices. The fact that those criteria will now be conditions of funding is a significant improvement.
I credit Unite, the GMB, Unison and especially the Educational Institute of Scotland Further Education Lecturers Association—EIS-FELA—which has campaigned on the fair work issue for a very long time. I want to credit in particular the EIS-FELA members at Forth Valley College, who, as a result of what happened at their institution, led the national campaign against fire and rehire in the college sector and won a really important victory that, in many ways, paved the way for this.
I do think, as Maggie Chapman said, that the bill was something of a missed opportunity for us to address wider issues of the governance of individual institutions, both colleges and universities. We are more than a decade on from the 2015 act and there is a need for us to look again at governance in the sector.
However, as I said a moment ago, we can legislate to address structural issues, and both Audit Scotland and the Withers report clearly laid out structural issues in the system. By aligning the system better, we will address some of those issues. Through this bill, once we pass it, we will have legislated to somewhat address the issues around strategy and direction, but, again, it is not appropriate to do all of that through legislation.
Much as the Greens are comfortable about voting for the bill today, the challenge—not for this Government, but for the Government that will be in place after May—is to set out a very clear strategic direction for our colleges and universities in particular. What are we trying to achieve? It is about not just our economic needs, but our social and environmental needs, because it is only with that clear direction that colleges, in particular, can thrive and succeed, as they have given us ample evidence of doing.
I call Paul O’Kane to speak for a generous four minutes.
20:45
Thank you, Presiding Officer. At this stage in the evening, and given the many contributions that we have heard already, I might not go beyond that generous four minutes.
It is important to pull together some of the threads that we have heard, as well as our reasoning on this side of the chamber for not supporting the bill this evening. Daniel Johnson outlined quite clearly several significant concerns that we still have around the bill and, crucially, about what it will not do for the wider skills landscape in Scotland.
I echo what colleagues have said about the minister’s efforts. I appreciate that, like me, he has come into the bill process as it has advanced. That is not always easy, but he has tried to engage. I acknowledge that, in a lot of what he has said, he recognises the challenges that will exist for a future Government.
That is the core of many of our concerns this evening. The minister spoke about technological change and facing that future challenge. The reality is that a lot of that challenge is present here and now. The jobs and industries of the future are moving at pace, not just in Scotland but internationally. We see that particularly in relation to the growth of artificial intelligence, digital tech, the defence sector and medicines. That is why we feel that, in this bill, we have missed an opportunity to make the demonstrable change that we need in training and upskilling young people, in particular, for the jobs that are already here, when other countries are perhaps moving ahead.
This evening, speakers in the debate, such as Willie Rennie, Ross Greer, Daniel Johnson and Miles Briggs, have set out a lot of the context around how we got here and all the work that has been going on ever since the Audit Scotland report, which Willie Rennie referenced, and the Withers review, with the stark challenges that it outlined. I do not think that the bill is addressing many of the wider issues that were at the heart of that.
Douglas Ross’s contribution was interesting. He posed the question about what the public think and how much they will judge this work in the election that we are about to enter into. Yes, if we knock on someone’s door, they will probably not be enthused by a technical bill such as this one, but their actual concerns would lie with the level of apprenticeship starts and the opportunities that exist for people in their communities.
I made this point in the debate on amendments. We know that learning providers requested 34,000 starts in 2024-25, compared with an actual 25,000 starts. This bill will not add a single apprenticeship—that is the reality of where we are.
I did have somebody raise it on the doorstep—they were an employee of SDS. They did not quite grab me with joy—it was probably the opposite. That reminds us that the decisions that we make in this place have direct consequences for the employment prospects of individuals, so we need to act with care every time we are talking about big-bang reorganisation. We may think that it is a good political thing to do, but we need to fully understand the consequences for people’s livelihoods, as that person made clear to me.
I am shocked that anyone in north-east Fife would not greet Willie Rennie at the door with an embrace of joy.
He makes a fair point about our decisions having an impact. We have heard from the trade unions at SDS and from those who work in those agencies about the concern and disruption that such decisions can cause. We need to take cognisance of that, and that has very much been put on the record this evening.
As I said, I am conscious that the bill will not make the change that we want to see right now and that some of that change is being pushed down the road. We know that the reform should be rooted in the Withers review. We agreed with the central conclusion of the Withers review on the need for structural and operational reform, which we have heard so much about throughout today’s process, as well as with the creation of the single funding body, but the bill falls short with regard to skills reform. It risks becoming that cosmetic, big-bang reorganisation that Willie Rennie spoke about, by rearranging structures without addressing underlying failures that are letting people down and holding the economy back.
Fundamentally, as we have heard from across the chamber, the bill will pass this evening, but perhaps without the necessary degree of enthusiasm or vision moving forward. As I said in my contributions on amendments, the belief on this side of the chamber is that we will see change and move things forward in this area only by having a change of Government, and that will come through in the debates that we have as part of the election, which the people of Scotland are ready for.
I call Roz McCall to speak for a generous five minutes.
20:50
Scotland needs a skills system that values apprenticeships and technical education just as highly as it does academic routes. That should not be a controversial goal, and it is one that the Scottish Conservatives have long supported. The bill was an opportunity to deliver that change. Unfortunately, even as amended, the bill falls short: it does not provide the clarity, funding confidence or delivery plans that learners, employers and providers were promised. For that reason, the Scottish Conservatives will not support it tonight, as has already been said.
I will start by looking at the context. Under the SNP, college capacity has collapsed. The number of full-time equivalent places has fallen by more than 8,000 to just over 116,000, which is the lowest level on record. Student head count is down, enrolments are down and institutions are increasingly fragile. Colleges Scotland has been clear that a number of institutions are already in a precarious position, and the Scottish Funding Council’s capacity to support them is under serious strain even before any major organisational change begins.
At the same time, apprenticeship demand continues to far outstrip supply. Employers are crying out for skills. We know that demand is close to 40,000 apprenticeship places a year, yet only around 25,000 are being delivered. Young people compete with 60 to 80 other applicants for every place. That does not illustrate a system that is working.
However, despite that pressure, the SNP has presided over a situation in which £171 million of the money raised from employers through the apprenticeship levy has not been spent on apprenticeships. Scottish businesses have paid £875 million into the levy since 2020, but only £704 million has been spent on graduate, foundation and modern apprenticeships. That £171 million should have gone directly to training opportunities.
Against that backdrop, the bill proposes a major structural reorganisation, transferring responsibility for apprenticeships and national training programmes from Skills Development Scotland to the Scottish Funding Council, which will significantly expand the SFC’s remit, staffing and responsibilities. We agreed with the principle of simplifying the landscape. The Withers review set out a compelling case for reducing fragmentation and bureaucracy, but structures alone do not deliver outcomes, and reforms without clarity create risk.
Even at stage 3, uncertainty remains around costs, staffing transfers and pension liabilities. Ministers have revised estimates, but they are still estimates so the Parliament is being asked to approve a substantial change without full confidence in its long-term financial impact.
There is genuine concern about delivery. Stakeholders have warned that the proposals could become more complex, more costly and slower to implement than envisaged. Unison has raised concerns about risk to the quality and volumes of apprenticeships and to staff. Education leaders have warned that foundation apprenticeships could be weakened or unintentionally sidelined. Those are not abstract concerns; they go to the heart of how young people access skills and qualifications.
Some improvements have been made at stage 2, and we welcome greater transparency and stronger governance provisions. However, the changes do not resolve the core problem: the bill still does not guarantee that money will reach the front line, apprenticeship numbers will increase or technical education will finally be given parity of esteem, as it deserves.
I turn to a couple of points that have been made tonight. Daniel Johnson said—as I have done—that effecting reform without clarity and strategy is a flawed approach. If we do not know whether the structure is right, how can it be delivered? I intervened on Ross Greer in his opening speech to make the same point. I am glad that he returned to that in his closing remarks, but I would note that function does not need to be under one roof for it to be aligned. As Willie Rennie mentioned, that can be achieved through strong leadership, and through different processes and different bodies.
I am a little bit disappointed in Willie Rennie and the Liberal Democrats that they are supporting the bill. They should not be voting through bad legislation. Although I fully understand the point about knocking on doors and meeting the people affected by the decisions that are made in this place, voting through bad law does a disservice to the people we are here to serve.
The last point that I want to highlight is the one that was mentioned by Douglas Ross on ONS classification, which the committee could neither support nor oppose at stage 1. It is very important to note that, right from the outset, the committee could not find agreement on that issue.
The Scottish Conservatives will continue to champion a skills system that is demand led, employer informed and genuinely focused on opportunity, but we cannot support legislation that risks adding complexity at a time when institutions are fragile and learners are already being let down.
In the words of Milton Friedman,
“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”
That applies to politicians and Governments, too. Reform should be about outcomes, not upheaval. This reform should lead to more apprenticeships and more training for people, young and old alike, to enable them to succeed; stronger colleges, clearer pathways; and better value for money. The bill does not deliver that.
I call the minister to wind up the debate. You have a very generous six minutes, minister.
20:56
I thank members for all their contributions, particularly Ross Greer and others from the Scottish Green Party, and Willie Rennie and others from the Scottish Liberal Democrats, for engaging extremely constructively in this process and for helping to progress this important legislation. I record my thanks to my team of officials, who have worked incredibly hard, proactively and thoughtfully. Together, with care, we have progressed this bill. Nurturing our people, who are the most important part of our society and our greatest resource, is an extremely important responsibility.
While we have been considering stage 3 tonight, there will be—or will have been; I hope that they will be in their beds now—children wondering what they will do when they grow up. We must help to inspire them. There will be teenagers deciding what choices to make at school and on the next step of their pathway, and we must help to guide them. There will be those who are part of generation Z who will be wondering how they will navigate the challenges ahead in an increasingly unsettling world, and we must seek to reassure them. There will also be older folks, some of whom might be anxious or excited about the possibility of retraining or upskilling, and we must seek to support them.
Part of our responsibility, as we serve in this place, and as we serve all those people, is to ensure continuously that our systems are adapted and ready—for our people and for the future. As the report co-authored by Audrey Cumberford of Edinburgh College, which is in my constituency, stated, the future world of work and skills will be
“volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous”.
Therefore, we need to adapt. We need a system that is agile; that enables even more of our people to make the most of their natural talents; that meets our collaborative and collective needs and fosters diversity, creativity and collaboration; that is cohesive; and that enables us to remain globally competitive.
Once implemented, the bill will deliver a sound and balanced foundation for a simpler, more joined-up tertiary education and training system. It will continue to evolve in partnership with the Parliament, the education sector and the business community. It is important to emphasise that many in the business community support the bill. For example, this week, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Food and Drink Federation Scotland emphasised their support.
Most importantly, the bill will continue to evolve with the people whom we serve. Of course, staff are working to support learners and innovation every day. That is why I am pleased that Colleges Scotland, Universities Scotland and the Scottish Training Federation, as well as many significant employers—large and small—support the bill.
The minister just mentioned Universities Scotland. One of the key issues that it has raised throughout the bill process has been Office for National Statistics classification. At this late stage—we are debating stage 3 after 9 o’clock on a Tuesday evening—does he know yet what the tipping point would be for future legislation that would threaten such classification?
I have said many times that, overall, that is a decision for ONS. Our responsibility, which my officials, ministerial colleagues and I have thoughtfully carried out throughout the process, is to ensure that we do not exert control over universities. Douglas Ross listens very carefully, so he will have heard the way in which I have dealt with the stage 2 proceedings and even the stage 3 proceedings today.
A vote for the bill is a vote for significant change. It is a vote for colleges, universities and training providers to work more cohesively to deliver high-quality, future-ready education and training. It is a vote to cut through bureaucracy, improve funding flows and maximise public value. It is a vote for a more efficient, aligned, responsive and collaborative system. It is a vote to take further steps to prevent gender-based violence and to advance fair work. It is a vote to widen access so that more people get the chance to study at college and higher education institutions.
Of course, the significant change that the bill makes is to expand the Scottish Funding Council’s role. It will be a fundamental redesign of the tertiary education and skills landscape. The SFC will be expected to evolve its structures, capabilities and culture, and it is ready for that. Throughout the bill process and in today’s debate, members have raised legitimate questions about the SFC’s capacity, culture and accountability. I assure the Parliament that I have engaged with the SFC to ensure that those points were probed. I am confident that the SFC will build strong and lasting partnerships with employers. Apprenticeships will continue to reflect the needs of business in the wider economy, and there will be significant input from and in collaboration with businesses. Apprenticeships will be made more accessible to young people who face barriers and those who retrain and upskill.
Given all that the SFC is taking on, some members have highlighted that the name “Scottish Funding Council” will no longer reflect the extent of what it does, which is an important point to consider, as Willie Rennie raised today. Changing the name in law could have required hundreds of technical amendments to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005, which would not have been a good use of parliamentary time. However, it is important that we consider a name that reflects what the SFC is known for and what it operates in practice in the future, so that its descriptor fully represents all that it will do. I am open to ideas from members, the business community and people more widely about what that name might be.
The bill was introduced to the Parliament almost a year ago, but the work did not start then. We are building on strong foundations and on a commitment that began when the Government decided in 2008, due to the financial crisis at the time, to ensure that no young person is denied the opportunity to fulfil their potential in education or in life due to economic disruption. I thank all those who have been involved since that juncture, including those at SDS. As we move forward, we do so on strong ground thanks to them.
The work of James Withers on the excellent skills review and report was what set us on this path. He made clear what many people recognised: that improvement to Scotland’s skills landscape was necessary and overdue, which is why we could not delay. He said that
“there is much that is good in the current system ... it has served Scotland’s needs well”,
but that we now need
“to create a system that”
allows users
“to meet ... the opportunities and challenges ahead ... and to meet the scale of the transformation that is facing us”.
He said that doing so
“may be the most important element of national infrastructure investment that Ministers could make over the next decade.”
Let us rise to that call together. Let us do what is necessary for now and get ready for what is ahead.
That concludes the debate on the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill.