Chamber and committees

Amendment 37, in my name, seeks provide that the chair of the Funding Council’s apprenticeship committee should be an employer or someone who represents the views and interests of employers.

I have set out arguments in the debates on previous groups about the role of employers in the new system. We know that there is anxiety among employers about the abolition of SAAB and the transfer to a single source of funding from SDS. My proposed provision would help to build confidence among employers that their voice was valued and heard. It would ensure that their unique expertise and insight were brought into the system as the policy was developed. I encourage members to support amendment 37.

I want to challenge amendments 14, 14A, 14B and 15. Universities Scotland has serious concerns about all those amendments; it believes that they would threaten ONS classification.

In relation to amendments 14, 14A and 14B, the Funding Council already has powers to request information, and its external auditors already produce annual accounts that are then shared with it. Amendments 14, 14A and 14B would introduce greater reach but also a lack of clarity. In particular, the phrase,

“where it considers it necessary to do so”,

is very vague; it needs to be much more specific to avoid overreach.

Members will know that ONS classification is based not on whether powers are actually used but on the possibility of powers being used. Therefore, even if the powers are used only on very rare occasions, the fact that they can be used is, in itself, a threat to ONS classification.

On amendment 15—

Certainly.

I think that that is the case. The strength of the opposition from Universities Scotland should make us think. I take on board Ross Greer’s point that it has, in the past, made such warnings, and those warnings have not come to fruition. However, that does not mean that we should carry on relentlessly increasing the powers of the Funding Council and our reach into that space. At some point, the cumulative effect might affect ONS classification.

Douglas Ross is right about there being a lack of clarity with regard to exactly where the trigger is. That has been tested, to some degree, through the use of the section 25 powers in the 2005 act. Over time, through the use of those powers, ministers have gradually become much more explicit in their direction to universities. Things ebbed and flowed with Dundee, but, nevertheless, the lack of specificity in this respect is a problem. That is why I would encourage members not to move amendments 14, 14A, 14B and 15.

Yes.

I think that such an approach will give false confidence, because I am not confident that the SFC will have the wherewithal and the expertise to interpret how the institution is performing, beyond what the external auditors, the court and the senate are already scrutinising. If we introduce the proposed powers, there is a danger that they could not only threaten ONS classification but give the public a belief that we are on top of this, when, in fact, the SFC might have no more ability to understand how the university in question is functioning or should function. Therefore, I think that we should rely on the existing mechanisms to provide that challenge and ensure that these institutions, which are, in many cases, too big to fail, do not fail in the end.

We, and the public, will be more alert. The court, the senate and the external auditors will have learned from the Dundee experience, and they will provide greater challenge. That should not mean that there should be a guarantee that the Government has a right to interfere or a compulsion to do so.

I will conclude on that point.

If the minister has finished with Jackie Dunbar’s amendments, I want to make a point about my amendments 31 to 33. They are not about limiting fees, but about having special recognition for managing agents. Currently, that sort of recognition does not exist, so the amendments seek to include those agents in the bill. Will the minister address that point, or can we have a discussion about it afterwards?

Let me go through some of the other arguments.

On amendment 15, the Scottish Funding Council already has the statutory duty to secure coherent provision, but it is believed that the issuing of statutory guidance specifically on

“the needs and interests of current and prospective learners”

is an overreach, too. As members will know, some of the learners at our universities are international students, who are privately funded. As those students receive no public finance for their education, I do not understand why the interests of all current and prospective learners should be the responsibility of the Funding Council when it does not contribute towards the education of those students. What particular tools does the Scottish Funding Council have to assess that anyway?

Amendments 14, 14A, 14B and 15 would give the Funding Council greater responsibility and, therefore, greater reach in relation to the role of universities. That is the concern here. Moreover, those amendments do not draw a distinction between colleges and universities. As we know, colleges and universities have different ONS classifications, and bringing in a set of rules that would treat them equally would undermine those classifications.

My final point is on the University of Dundee. It was an extreme case, and it was unique—perhaps not that unique, but unique enough. We should not legislate on the basis of a crisis in one institution. We need to be incredibly careful that we do not put in place a set of rules that potentially threatens ONS classification, as that could potentially give rise to greater crises than we have seen at Dundee university.

I come back to what Ross Greer said. On two separate occasions, he said that there was no compulsion and no ability to compel. Those two requirements are, I think, a challenge. These institutions—the universities—should have the freedom to act as the independent bodies that they are. If the Government, through the Funding Council, has the opportunity to compel them to act, we will be overreaching into the ONS classification space.

Therefore, despite what the minister has said, I encourage us to take a deep breath and take some time before stage 3 to have proper discussions on this matter, involving all members, so that we can all be confident, in the way that Mr Ross has set out, about having clarity on ONS classification, and when it is and is not applied.

For my four amendments in this group, I have been working with SELECT—Scotland’s electrical trade association. Amendment 30 specifies that Scottish ministers may make

“provision of grants, loans or payments to managing agents”

for the delivery of Scottish apprenticeships or work-based learning.

Amendment 31 would add a reference to “managing agent” alongside training providers in relation to the SFC making grants for apprenticeships and work-based learning.

Amendment 32 is consequential, and amendment 33 would add the definition of “managing agent”.

The purpose of the amendments is to address what has been quite a controversial debate during the scrutiny of the bill, about the role of managing agents. I know that Mr Adam had a particular concern about the margin and the profitability that it is claimed that some of those managing agents take. My amendments are an attempt to rebalance the discussion, because managing agents have an important role to play, within a strict set of rules. Therefore, they should be specified in the bill to ensure that we provide assurance about those who provide a very good service, in order to enhance the role of skills development and work-based learning in Scotland.

Managing agents undertake a variety of different important roles, including offering pre-employment assessments to all applicants; arranging the enrolment of apprentices and adult trainees to 22 colleges across Scotland; co-ordinating and timetabling courses at colleges; providing teaching materials; paying college fees; and providing training support to apprentices and employers.

I am keen to hear the minister’s response to that, to see whether the amendments are necessary and whether he can provide me with assurances about the role of good managing agents.

There is obviously nervousness about Office for National Statistics classification for the universities, and I notice that the member has not drawn any distinction between the rules that he would like to apply to colleges and universities. Has he sought advice about the consequences of the proposals in his amendments for the university sector with regard to ONS classification?