Chamber and committees

Committee members are right to focus on the matters that are set out in this group of amendments and on how important the transition will be, should it be the will of Parliament that the bill passes. I am as keen as colleagues are to keep costs under control, to keep staff engaged and make sure that they know that they are valued, to keep track of progress and to ensure that there is no disruption to current service provision. That has, rightly, been emphasised—including by Miles Briggs.

The question that we have is how best to do that. Ironically, creating lots of statutory obligations can have the opposite effect to the one that is intended, and can generate additional and unhelpful administrative demands and associated costs.

I am pleased to support amendment 197 in the name of Miles Briggs. It takes a sensible and pragmatic approach to updating the Scottish Parliament on the financial implications of any transfer of functions related to the bill. I will consider coming back at stage 3 with an amendment to finesse the wording, because the bill does not directly transfer any functions. However, I am happy to support amendment 197 at this stage and I thank Miles Briggs for lodging it.

I contend that the other important points raised by colleagues, including by Pam Duncan-Glancy, in relation to the amendments in group 10 are best handled administratively, so I cannot support any other amendment in the group. I would be happy to commit the Scottish Government to updating the committee regularly on the progress with implementation and the matters covered by the amendments. I hope that that commitment is sufficient to encourage members not to press their amendments—other than, as I emphasised, amendment 197.

One reason why it is better to handle those matters administratively is that we do not want to lock ourselves into an approach to consultation, engagement or reporting that later turns out not to be the best way forward. For example, Pam Duncan Glancy’s amendment 198 would make various provisions for engagement with trade unions; although I agree that that is paramount, it may not be the right thing for ministers to establish formal joint consultation groups. We have to be careful to give the public bodies their proper roles in supporting and delivering the changes. The SFC, not the Scottish Government, will be the employer of any staff transferred from SDS to the SFC, so there are matters on which it is proper for the SFC to engage with staff and unions, rather than for ministers to do so. It is my clear expectation that the SFC and SDS will have a process in place to do that—just as I have been clear with all the bodies involved in the transition of staff outwith the bill that they must engage meaningfully with their staff throughout the process.

The suggestion of post-legislative scrutiny would continue the engagement process, and I am very supportive of that in principle, but I have several issues with the framing of the amendment. First, it would not normally be for a public body to conduct a review; it would be for ministers to do so. Ministers may involve relevant bodies in reviewing legislation, where they have responsibilities and duties for implementation, and, in this case, the SFC would be relevant for that purpose. However, to cover all the aspects that Pam Duncan-Glancy is looking for would likely involve other public bodies, such as colleges. Secondly, the review period is too short. It is not only that an annual review would be overly burdensome but that having that kick in only a year after the bill came into force would mean that the first review—and maybe the first few reviews—would not have much material to go on.

However, I understand, appreciate and respect very much the appetite for post-legislative scrutiny. As with many of the amendments that we have discussed at stage 2, I cannot support amendment 206 as drafted, but I would like to consider what we can do to review that ahead of stage 3. Therefore, I ask Pam Duncan-Glancy not to press amendment 206. Should she do so, I ask members to vote against it.

I understand why Mr Kerr raises the point, and I share his determination to create greater parity of esteem and opportunities that are available to all. The fact is that, with regard to the evidence that was heard and the 2005 act itself, the widening access considerations are concerned with further and higher education. As for the accessibility of apprenticeships, I think that the member will agree with me that, in general, they are more widely available to different socioeconomic groups.

However, I take Mr Kerr’s point, and I would be pleased to consider it further and have more dialogue on it in the discussions that I have already undertaken to have.

Amendments 17 and 23, which are in my name, will enable data sharing so that our most disadvantaged learners can be identified. During the stage 1 debate, I indicated that I was cautiously optimistic that I could do something on widening access, and I am therefore delighted to have been able to lodge the amendments. I welcomed the committee’s interest in the issue and its recommendation in the stage 1 report, which is what I am seeking to implement through amendment 17.

The Scottish index of multiple deprivation has served us well as an indicator of deprivation to widen access to university. However, it has its limitations, particularly in providing useful data at a granular level and below postcode level. That indicator has taken us only so far, and we know that there are young people who have grown up in poverty and whose families and households have experienced social and economic disadvantage but who are living outside the 20 per cent most deprived areas. Those learners might not be benefiting from our ambition and commitment to widen access, and it feels appropriate to ensure that all people for whom our policy on widening access might potentially apply get the opportunity to go to university if that is right for them.

Amendment 17 will create a power for the Scottish ministers, by way of regulations, to set out the information that must be shared and the information holders and relevant bodies that must share it for the stated purpose. The amendment will allow Scottish ministers to require the sharing of information about learners who belong to identified underrepresented socioeconomic groups. The amendment would mean that learners can be given a fair chance to progress and succeed in education in the way that is right for them and that enables them to fulfil their full potential.

Amendment 23 will make those regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, which is appropriate for such significant information sharing and will give the Parliament an appropriate role in scrutinising the secondary legislation.

Given the committee’s interest and the support of the commissioner for fair access for measures in this regard, I hope that members will support my amendments.

On the other amendments in the group, Pam Duncan-Glancy, in presenting amendment 127, which is in the name of Daniel Johnson, referred to points that were raised by the EIS. I refer back to the discussion that we had on amendments 1 and 2 in group 2, which addressed those points. From dialogue that I have had with the EIS, I know that it is positive about the fact that the Government proactively sought to respond to its concerns, which Pam Duncan-Glancy articulated. I hope that amendments 1 and 2, which we have already discussed, have reassured on those points.

I understand the intention behind amendment 127, which is in the name of Daniel Johnson, and I listened carefully to the argument in favour of the amendment that was put in his stead by Pam Duncan-Glancy. However, the 2005 act already places a duty on the SFC to publish reports on its activities. For example, the SFC publishes an annual report alongside its accounts. Amendment 127 would duplicate the existing law and therefore, with respect, is unnecessary. However, I undertake to consider what improvements might be made to reporting to ensure that reports meet the needs of members and stakeholders, which can be done administratively.

Amendment 128, which is in the name of Ross Greer, seeks to give effect to a matter that he raised in the stage 1 debate in relation to concerns about public bodies having copyrighted websites and restricting access to information. I understand his concern but, with respect, we again feel that the amendment is unnecessary. I have highlighted that the SFC already proactively publishes data. I am also concerned that the amendment extends to fundable bodies, which also have commercial considerations, and would require them to routinely identify and publish “appropriate” information—George Adam highlighted the vagueness of that term. I hope that Ross Greer can see how challenging it would be for us to make that requirement in law on those bodies and that it is unnecessary in relation to the SFC.

I thank Ross Greer for raising that more general point, which I have heard him raise many times in the chamber in recent months and years. If it would be of assistance, and if it would be appropriate, I would be grateful to have the opportunity to take that more general point away and to write to him personally on it.

I share the member’s aim of ensuring that all persons of all socioeconomic groups can consider whether an apprenticeship is the right pathway for them, and that we have that shift of consciousness in our society towards genuine parity of esteem. I look forward to having further discussions on the matter.

Amendments 129 to 131, in the name of Miles Briggs, seek to extend the duty to notify the SFC of matters specified in regulations beyond the post-16 bodies to training providers. Again, it is worth noting that training providers are largely private sector entities that are supported by their sectors but which receive public money for specific purposes. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to extend the provisions to them.

Such providers differ from colleges and universities, whom I think we would expect to advise the SFC on matters that might indicate a serious problem at an institution, or a threat to a number of institutions. Universities, although in the private sector, are fundable bodies and have the privileges and obligations that that status entails.

It would not be appropriate to require the SFC and, in turn, ministers to have oversight of independent commercial operations. Moreover, the SFC would not have the functions or capacity to do anything with the information. I think that we would want to guard closely against any overreach into business here.

Amendment 195 covers similar ground to my amendment 17, but there are flaws in its drafting. Local authorities are unlikely to have many obligations at all under the 2005 act, and none of the bodies listed has any obligations under the bill itself. Also, no procedure has been listed for the regulation-making power, which is something that I am sure that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee will have views on, too. I do support and share the intention behind Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 195, but given my amendment 17, I suggest that it is not required, and I ask her not to move it.

I will be moving amendments 17 and 23 and ask members to support them.

I hope that Pam Duncan-Glancy will not press amendment 127. If she presses it, I encourage members to vote against it.

I encourage members to vote against Ross Greer’s amendment 128, for the reasons that I have set out. In response to Ross Greer’s intervention, I offered to correspond with him, but I may inquire whether it would be more appropriate for another minister to write to him on the matter that he raised. I will make sure that such correspondence is arranged.

I hope that Miles Briggs will not move amendments 129 to 131. If he moves them, I encourage members to vote against them.

As my amendment 17 covers similar ground to the ground that Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 195 covers, I hope that she will not move amendment 195. If she does, I encourage members to vote against it.

Miles Briggs’s amendment 151, and the other amendments in the group, would have the effect of adding Scottish local authorities to the list of fundable bodies in the 2005 act, as the member has just mentioned. In fact, they would do so twice over.

The defined term “fundable bodies” is only relevant to the provision of

“fundable further and higher education”

under the framework of the 2005 act. Adding local authorities to that list would only mean that the SFC could, in theory, provide them funding to deliver fundable further and higher education. However, it would also make local authorities subject to the suite of provisions and requirements in the 2005 act that relate to the further and higher education institutions. I am not sure that local authorities would see that as desirable and I am not aware of any appetite from local authorities to be added to the list of fundable bodies.

That point is understood and agreed on. I just want to emphasise that local authorities can be training providers under the bill.

That wider context is important to our considerations and I am grateful to Ross Greer for the amendment that seeks to probe those matters. I look forward to further discussion with him ahead of stage 3 on the points raised. I also thank the convener for his patience in allowing that intervention.

To be clear, amendment 174 is not one of the amendments that I said that I would want to reconsider ahead of stage 3, but 173 and 175 to 180 are.