Chamber and committees

Before I ask those questions, I want to go back to the line of questioning from Colin Beattie and Graham Simpson. Bearing in mind that various lockdowns took place between 2020 and May 2023, was Covid ever brought up during your audit work and engagement with the college? It did not come up in the report, and it has not come up so far in this evidence session.

I am certainly not using that as any type of mitigating factor, but 2020 was a huge shock for everyone and affected how we went about our normal business and, when I was reading the report, I considered whether that was part of any attempt not to follow due process.

That is certainly something that would be worth while to look at if you could send that to the committee—thank you.

Paragraphs 32 to 37 of your report cover the complex issues that relate to the qualified opinion on the college’s accounts. Can you provide further detail on the key stakeholders that the college reported those issues to?

Can you provide further detail on the three recommendations from the lessons learned report that are being implemented on an on-going basis? What progress is being made?

That is helpful—thank you.

Paragraph 39 of the report states:

“The annual audit report 2022/23 concluded that, with the exception of the issues related to the project, Forth Valley College has effective arrangements in place for financial planning, governance and performance management.”

That sounds a wee bit contradictory—it certainly contradicts what we have heard this morning. How can the arrangements that were in place at the time have been effective if they enabled the situation that has arisen?

In December 2024, the board of management agreed that the dual role held by the vice-principal of finance and corporate affairs as secretary to the board of management should continue, despite the board acknowledging that the arrangement does not comply with the “Code of Good Governance for Scotland’s Colleges”. Do you know why the board of management took that decision?

The committee asked two questions on this instrument, which, from 1 August 2025, amends the eligibility criteria for membership of the Scottish teachers’ pension scheme by amending the principal regulations for the scheme—the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (Scotland) (No 2) Regulations 2014 (SSI 2014/292).

The first question was whether it had been intentional to include a definition of “immediately before” in schedule 1, thus suggesting that the definition applies in each place where it appears, including references in both the new provisions that are inserted by this instrument and existing provisions. The Scottish Government confirmed that the intention had been for the definition to apply only to the new provisions. However, it considers that, in the context of the other 13 provisions, the new definition is inoperative and therefore of no effect.

The second question relates to proposed new paragraph 16(1)(d) of schedule 1 to the principal regulations, as inserted by regulation 4(c) of these amendment regulations. The committee asked the Scottish Government what the words

“this part of the scheme”

meant in the paragraph, and whether its meaning was sufficiently clear. The Scottish Government confirmed that the paragraph is meant to have effect in relation to the scheme as a whole, as established by the principal regulations, and the unintentional ambiguity is regretted. The Scottish Government intends to clarify both issues in the next amending instrument.

Does the committee wish to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on the general reporting ground in that the definition of “immediately before”, as inserted into schedule 1 of SSI 2014/292 by regulation 3 of the instrument, was intended to apply in relation to that term only where it appears in proposed new paragraphs 15B, 15C and 15D, but has been applied to all instances where that term appears in schedule 1; and that the reference to

“this part of the scheme”

in proposed new paragraph 16(1)(d) to schedule 1 of SSI 2014/292, as inserted by regulation 4(c) of the instrument, should be a reference to the scheme as a whole? Does the committee wish to note that the Scottish Government has undertaken to clarify those points in the next amending instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Under agenda item 2, we are considering four instruments. Points have been raised on three of them. The committee asked questions of the Scottish Government in relation to all four instruments, and the full correspondence has been published alongside the papers for this meeting.

The instrument makes amendments to the Education (Appeal Committee Procedures) (Scotland) Regulations 1982, which govern school admission and exclusion appeal hearings in Scotland. The committee asked a question about the enabling powers, specifically why section 28H(5) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 was not cited. The Scottish Government acknowledged that that section should have been cited as an enabling power, but considers that its omission does not affect the validity of the instrument.

Does the committee wish to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on the general reporting ground of a failure to follow proper drafting practice, in that section 28H(5) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 has not been cited as an enabling power in the preamble?

Members indicated agreement.

Is the committee content with the instrument??

Members indicated agreement.