Education, Children and Young People Committee 26 November 2025 [Draft]
I am looking at the wording of amendment 66. It says, specifically, that a fundable body should
“take reasonable steps to inform and consult the persons mentioned in subsection (2) before implementing any decision that could significantly impact”
provision for learners, levels of staffing or financial sustainability.
If the situation were time limited in the way that the member has described—if it were an emergency, for example, where the fundable body had to close a building in order to look to the safety of both learners and staff—the amendment would provide for that flexibility and reasonableness. It is certainly not my intention that any fundable body be prevented from taking decisions such as those that will be time limited rather than those that could have a longer-term impact on funders and learners. I hope that the words “reasonable” and “significantly” give flexibility to the amendment.
Amendment 67 is about appointing chairs and would require that they have certain skills. The skills that are highlighted are covered the Gillies report, although I recognise that other skills are needed and that it is crucial to take account of communities, class background and so on. The amendment specifically highlights some of the skills that I think could have been beneficial in certain situations that have come to light in recent months and years—including in Dundee—and might have helped to avoid some of the situations that we have seen. That is why I have specifically drawn them out.
Amendment 68 would require that
“the governing body of the fundable body must have due regard to the views of any members representing students and staff”,
that those members receive
“the same documentation as other members of the governing body”
and that they are
“protected from detriment or exclusion for raising concerns in good faith.”
That would include
“giving members representing students and staff a reasonable opportunity to present their views ... documenting the views of such members”
and
“documenting how the governing body responded to any such views presented, and where relevant, the reasons for not aligning with the views of members representing students and staff.“
Trade unions have told us that their members and students associations do not always feel that they have parity with other members on governing bodies. Given the value that trade unions and organisations that represent students can bring to decisions that will fundamentally affect learning in any fundable body, it is incredibly important that such parity exists. Not to have that parity or give due regard to the views of students and staff in such forums brings up the question of whether their representation on those boards is tokenistic. It is important that they be there and that due regard be given to what they say at the time.
My amendments in this group all seek to strengthen governance, decision making and the input that staff and students of institutions have—not to create overburdensome responsibilities on institutions but, rather, to ensure that decisions benefit from the value and expertise that everyone who is affected by them on the governing body will have.
We know, for example, from decisions that have been made without proper engagement with trade unions that even some small concerns could have been resolved if trade unions had been properly engaged and given time to negotiate or to understand what was being put in front of them. Trade unions sometimes attend meetings almost in the dark, without access to the papers that would give them the information to provide an input.
To properly engage with trade unions is not only a matter of good governance—although that is important, too—but about valuing the expertise of everyone around the table, not only that of the chairs and members who represent other interests. Although the latter are crucial, it is important to ensure that any ideas and experience can be drawn on to benefit the institutions.
I will mention other members’ amendments in this group. I have already spoken to Ross Greer’s amendment 51 on the management agents. I genuinely understand why Ross Greer has lodged amendment 54, on the election to the bodies, but I worry slightly about the capacity of institutions to bring forward elections. I also worry about getting people to stand for election. We all understand the great responsibility and privilege that comes with that, and it can be difficult. I would not want institutions to be in a situation in which they could not appoint members to positions because of a lack of interest. Those are my slight concerns about amendment 54.
I support amendment 62, although it is important to consider what it means for the funding of student associations to be “adequate”. I got into politics through student associations, so I understand their value. We have to do everything we can to support them in providing the incredible experience and opportunity for students to supplement the formal learning in an institution with the learning that we all gain from representing others and being at decision-making tables, as is often the case for people who represent students in associations.
I understand why Maggie Chapman lodged amendments 58 and 60. I worry slightly about the detail concerning ONS and the classification of universities. If the amendments put the ONS classification of universities at risk, I cannot support them. Those are my concerns.