 Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is a statement by Angela Constance on further education provision in Glasgow. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement so there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Angela Constance, cabinet secretary, 10 minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm grateful for the opportunity to make this statement on the important matter of college governance in Glasgow. Members will be aware that this morning, I laid an order before the Parliament to remove from office the chair and members of the board of Glasgow Clyde College and to appoint a new chair and members in their place. The order came into force this morning. Glasgow Clyde College serves students from across Glasgow and beyond. It is a significant enterprise, employing nearly 1,000 staff with anwial budget of nearly £30 million. It's board, like all college boards, is responsible for the overall functioning of the college and the experience of its students. Ministers rightly have high expectations of colleges and their boards because staff, students and the people of Scotland have high expectations. Colleges are vital to the success of our country and its people, and college boards are key to that success. Boards are responsible for governing to the required standards. That includes identifying and controlling the main risks to effective delivery. Governance is also about sustaining and developing the college, ensuring that it thrives and flourishes. The overwhelming majority of boards recognise the importance of their job, the extent of their responsibilities and the impact of their actions. The fact that members are volunteers in no way diminishes the importance of what they do, nor are there expectations for delivery. Consistent with their important role and responsibilities and a priority area of public service, the sector itself has developed a specific code of good governance setting out the standards required. It is important that all college boards adhere to those standards. At this college, standards fell short of what was required. Matters first came to my attention in February when the principal was suspended. That is rightly a matter for the college as employer. Concerns were raised with me and the Scottish funding council by students, staff and wider stakeholders. Such was the nature, we took those concerns seriously and we addressed them appropriately. The funding council undertook an investigation having established that there were grounds to do so. My own officials subsequently sought detailed information from the college. A series of meetings took place between May and September involving myself, Scottish Government officials, the funding council and Glasgow Colleges regional board. There has also been extensive correspondence between the funding council, the board and Scottish Government in which we made clear our concerns and sought to understand the facts. We provided the board with the opportunity to make its case and considered its responses carefully. I have concluded that the board failed on a number of counts. Those are set out fully in the policy note accompanying the order laid before Parliament, but I want to highlight the four key areas of board failure. First, the board allowed its relationships with student representatives and the wider student population to deteriorate. It did nothing to address that problem and does not accept that there is a problem. The former board allowed its working relationship with student leaders to deteriorate until they no longer took an active role in the board. Indeed, the relationship with students broke down to the extent that no one was prepared to stand for election to the board, yet the board made no attempt to repair the relationship. It does not even now acknowledge that there has been a breakdown in its relationship with its student body. Secondly, the board incurred significant amounts of expenditure without seeking appropriate prior approval. There are clear rules on how colleges can spend public money. That includes limits on how much can be spent without a competitive tender. Beyond those limits, colleges must get approval from the funding council. At Clyde, those rules were breached. In fact, the board committed to three times more expenditure than the rules allowed—over £90,000. In total, the board has committed over £200,000 on legal and professional fees. In short, it has mismanaged its finances. Thirdly, the board failed to consider serious concerns raised by the principle about governance matters in February of this year, which to date have not been addressed. The board took no action to understand the concerns raised in writing by the principle before her suspension. Yet those concerns covered matters of propriety, process, procedure, conflict of interest and behaviour. Finally, the board did not discharge a number of its functions appropriately. At important meetings, the board operated without proper agendas, without papers and advance of meetings, and without minutes that recorded discussions and decisions. It operated without a board secretary in place. It improperly delegated an executive function to a member of the board. The position of board secretary is pivotal in helping any board to govern properly, yet was not filled for several months. The board also improperly delegated an executive function to a board member in relation to how it took forward disciplinary proceedings. All of this meant that board members could not provide the stewardship that was expected at a multimillion-pound public sector organisation. Consecantly, members missed some obvious signs that their decisions were not robust. In short, the board set itself up for failure because it took decisions without proper consideration. There was extensive engagement with the college to understand the matters being brought to our attention. Those matters were serious and complex. It was right to consider them fully, and we did so. We also provided the board with the opportunity to make its case, and we considered its response carefully. Inevitably, this took time, but it is right that we carefully considered matters and that information provided to us by the board before reaching a conclusion. In particular, it was vital that we took into account the best interests and needs of students and staff at the college. Having done so, I am clear that the board repeatedly breached its grant conditions and mismanaged its affairs through collective board failure. Despite everything, the board showed no sign of recognising the seriousness of our concerns. It refused to take responsibility for the situation that had arisen through its own failings. I could no longer be confident that the board had the capability, capacity or willingness to move things forward, including restoring crucial relationships with students, staff and other important stakeholders. I have therefore removed all of the members from the boards of Glasgow Clyde College today with immediate effect. I have not taken this action lightly. In their place, I have appointed a new chair, Alec Lincston and new members. They have the skills, experience and personal commitment necessary for improvement. I am grateful to them for stepping in. I am pleased that Alec Lincston, the college and its board will have a highly respected and well-qualified leader. I am confident that the new board will forge a positive relationship with its student and staff, allowing the college to focus fully on supporting students to achieve their ambitions and ensuring that Clyde College plays a key role in the life of Glasgow, its people and its economy. That is no less than the Government, the public, the wider college sector and, most importantly, the students and staff at Glasgow Clyde itself should expect and deserve. Clearly, we all have an interest in ensuring that we can continue to build a strong, sustainable, successful college sector. We must consider what lessons might be learned from the situation in terms of good governance across the sector. There may well be lessons for the wider sector, the funding council and, indeed, the Government to learn. I am therefore announcing that I will chair a task group with Colleges Scotland and the funding council. That will be a practical, purposeful and focused effort to provide additional assurance on the quality and resilience of college governance. It will consider and take account of best practice in other sectors, and it will produce recommendations for improvement by early next year. However, today, my focus is on the interests and needs of students and staff at Glasgow Clyde. Colleges like Glasgow Clyde are vital to our aspirations to create a stronger and fairer Scotland with a strong, sustainable economy. Glasgow Clyde deserves and needs a robust, reliable and resilient board. Today, Presiding Officer, I have taken the necessary steps to provide just that. Thank you for that interesting statement from the cabinet secretary. If any member wants to wish wishes to ask a question of the cabinet secretary, please press the request speak button now and I call Ian Gray. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thanks to the cabinet secretary for early sight of her statement. In that statement and in the policy statement attached to the order, the cabinet secretary provides clear evidence of governance failure at Glasgow Clyde College. It is true that a variety of concerns have been raised repeatedly and for some time by staff, the student association, trade unions and NUS about issues in that college. So the cabinet secretary has made the case for the actions that she has taken today. It is extreme and unusual action, though. It does bear more examination than a short statement allows. The cabinet secretary has herself said that she will form a task group to see what lessons can be learned for the wider FE sector, and it is a sector under enormous pressure as a result of regionalisation, forced mergers and budget cuts. Will she ensure that the unions representing staff and organisations and students are also involved in the work of the task group, along with Collegy Scotland and the funding council? Will she further ensure that this Parliament is fully involved in the examination of those issues through the education committee or otherwise? I thank Mr Gray for his comments and for his acknowledgement that the policy note the statement of reasons for this unusual action. I am glad that he acknowledges that there is a clear case and evidence of continued and repeated failures in governance. I accept that this is highly unusual action. I welcome the opportunity to be scrutinised by Parliamentarians here this afternoon. I have spent this morning engaging with parliamentary colleagues across the chamber and indeed other stakeholders. Of course, the education committee and the delegated powers committee have a very important role in scrutinising the decision that I have made on behalf of the Scottish ministers. I will certainly endeavour to ensure that all interests are represented as we take forward the work in reflecting what we can learn from this incident. Although the incidents that have happened at Clyde College are isolated to this particular college, it is important that, as a Government and as a funding council, we reflect on what more we can learn and also how we can ensure the highest possible standards across the sector. I give a commitment to this Parliament to continue to have dialogue as seen appropriate by Parliament's committees this chamber and members. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also thank the Cabinet Secretary for Advanced Notice of this statement and indeed for taking the time to discuss the issue with Liz Smith and myself earlier today. I would be pleased to note that the cabinet secretary acknowledges the importance of an audit trail for use of public money. We also welcome the setting up of a task group with Colleges Scotland and the Scottish funding council, particularly given the other very serious issues currently being looked at by the Public Audit Committee of this Parliament in relation to North Glasgow and Coatbridge colleges. Can I ask what are the implications for the way the Scottish funding council operates, given their role in the funding of Glasgow Clyde College? Are there any other colleges known to the cabinet secretary who are fearing to comply with the code of governance and where financial mismanagement is suspected? Can I ask what action will be taken to clear the names of those who have been suspended inappropriately? Most importantly, can the cabinet secretary assure this chamber that the staff and students will get the full support from the Government and all of us to continue to provide the excellent education and training that our colleges offer? What action can be taken to ensure that those who are being removed do not go on to be employed again in our public sector in future? My final question is what action should have been taken by the Glasgow Colleges regional board who had significant responsibilities over the serious issues that we are facing today in relation to Glasgow Clyde? Let me be clear that all members who are members of the board during the relevant period, and that is from February to July 2015, except that the principal has been removed. Recently, we have had elections for the student positions. The student representation is unaffected because they have not been on the board at the time of concerns. There are two elected staff representatives of the board that were elected recently. One was re-elected and has been associated with the past failings of the previous board and they have been removed from the board. The staff representative from the non-teaching side has not been removed from the board because they are newly elected in their position. In terms of Mrs Garland's direct question about the consequences and the repercussions for individuals, it is that those individuals who have been removed from the Glasgow Clyde college board who are named on the order that I have laid in Parliament cannot be a member of any other college board. They cannot be a member of the Glasgow Colleges regional board and they cannot be a member of the Scottish funding council. That has been a big decision and one that I have taken cautiously and I have given all due consideration because the implications to individuals are indeed significant as of outlined. I am glad that Mrs Garland welcomes the task force. I want to pay tribute to the work of the Public Audit Committee and Audit Scotland. They have both produced reports recently that I think are helpful. The Government will certainly be responding to the recent report of the Public Audit Committee and will do so by the end of this month. As I indicated in my statement, although the situation has arisen as a result of poor governance, I have concluded that the people responsible for that poor governance are the people who were vested with their trust in decision making at Glasgow Clyde. Nonetheless, we will all have to look at how we respond to difficulties when they arise. There may well be important lessons for government, for the funding council, the Glasgow Colleges regional board and the wider sector. It is important that we all reflect on our role, but I have to be clear that the reason that I am in chamber today is because of repeated instances of mismanagement and poor governance in one particular college board. That is what we are having to respond to. I would expect to have a large number of members who want to ask a question. Can I ask the questions from now on in a brief? It would be helpful if the minister could be succinct. Stuart Maxwell will follow by John Lamont. I thank the cabinet secretary for a copy of the letter regarding the series issue that was sent this morning. However, given that the cabinet secretary has announced a task group review, can she tell me why the decision to replace the board was taken now and not after the review that she has announced has concluded? Given her comments, particularly in reply to Ian Gray, can I assume that the cabinet secretary will agree to attend the education and culture committee in due course to discuss this matter? Absolutely, Mr Maxwell. I will attend the education committee and any other committee of this Parliament as and when I am requested to do so. I take the responsibilities to appear in front of committee very seriously, as I take my responsibilities of accountability to the chamber very seriously. There are absolutely no issues. I will endeavour to keep Parliament and all relevant committees duly informed as we progress with the work of the task force. We will obviously be working up the remit of that task force. I will personally convene that task force. I hope that that work can continue at a pace, but, obviously, collegially and in partnership with all stakeholders involved. Once we have fully sculpt out the work, I will obviously be able to provide more precise information. Mr Maxwell's question about why now, as I hope I have indicated to the chamber, we have given the matter very careful consideration and taken into account the comments and views of the board. Having concluded that the board is failing, it is not in the interests of staff, students or, indeed, the wider sector to allow matters to continue. We know from correspondence and from meetings that the board's actions have had a negative impact on staff and students alike, and I am, I have to say very grateful to staff for their continued professionalism and commitment and what has undoubtedly been a very difficult time. Thank you very much. I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement and acknowledge the significance of it for Clyde College staff and students who have continued to sustain the work of the college throughout this extremely difficult time. I am immensely proud of the work of former Cardinal Donald, now Clyde College, for the quality of its teaching and support staff and the talents of its students. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will also regret that it is in the public eye because of those difficulties, rather than that proud record. I ask the cabinet secretary whether she would outline how she plans to support staff, students and the local college communities to rebuild morale and give people confidence that Clyde College is a high-quality place to work and learn. I certainly acknowledge Ms Lamatt's on-going interest in the matter. I pay tribute again to the dedication of staff at Clyde College in what has been a difficult time. I know that Ms Lamont, like Mr Scanlon, has raised issues in and around the suspension of the principle. I have to acknowledge that it is entirely a matter for the college board, and it will be a matter of priority for that new college board to take forward. I, as a minister, quite rightly have no locus in those employment matters. Of course, I am concerned about the serious governance issues that were raised by the principle before her suspension, which have not been resolved. I want to say to Johann Lamont that the new chair of the board will start work tomorrow that he will be in college meeting with senior members of staff and others to start that process of rebuilding relationships. The new term for the college has not long started, and it is time to reset relationships and move forward and continue to remember what the priority here is. The priority here is students, and they have to be at the absolute heart of the college experience and all decision making around that process. Alec Lincston, the new chair, will also have an interim board meeting and an informal board meeting next week, but that work starts tomorrow. John Mason, followed by Liam McArthur. Given that the cabinet secretary said that there have been financial mismanagement of the college's finances, is there any on-going impact on the college itself or on the other two colleges in the Glasgow region? No. The policy statement attached to the order that Mr Mason outlines what the financial mismanagement concerns were. They were in and around the board incurring expenditure beyond agreed limits and not acting in accordance with their own procedures, as well as procedures that were laid out by the Scottish funding council. However, the financial issues, as detailed, should not have an impact on the other two colleges in the city. Liam McArthur, followed by James Dornan. I also thank the cabinet secretary for making the statement at an early site of it, as well as her engagement with Opposition spokespeople this morning. As Liam McArthur indicated, this is a highly unusual and regrettable step, but we all recognise the seriousness of the situation and the need to act. The cabinet secretary referred to the breakdown in the relationship with student reps and the wider student population. Can she perhaps give more detail on the basis of that breakdown? Can she offer a reassurance that learning and courses will not be affected? Given the drastic nature of the decision to remove the chair and the board, does she agree that one of the primary tasks for the task group will be to consider what checks and balances need to be put in place to ensure that the sort of issues that have been identified in this case can be addressed without the need in future for a ministerial directed clear-out? Yes, Presiding Officer. I agree that it would be entirely appropriate for the task force to be looking at the checks and balances there. There are very important distinctive responsibilities between non-executive board members and executive employees of the college, and it is important that people understand those respective roles, because, in those respective roles, there are, indeed, checks and balances. We will want the task force to ensure that all is well in that regard. We will also want to look at matters such as financial control. For example, that would be another issue. Mr MacArthur asked for a bit more detail in terms of the breakdown in the relationship with the student board members and the student association. The student association executive has written about the treatment of two student board members who were inappropriately excluded from a board meeting back in February. One student member has stopped attending board meetings. While, at the end of the day, the individuals involved may well have different accounts of who said what and who is responsible for X, Y and Z. Ultimately, board members have a duty of care towards each other, and the board did not demonstrate to me sufficient insight or resolve to ensure that, going forward, they would keep that relationship with students as a priority. It is not an optional extra to be engaging and working collaboratively with the student body. It is, of course, regrettable that ministers have had to take such unusual action. Looking forward, we indeed want to minimise any possibility of ministers having to come to the chamber again in similar circumstances. The cabinet secretary will be aware that Glasgow Clyde College's Langside campus is located in my constituency. Could she expand on the assurances given to Joanne Lamont and Liam MacArthur that that decision will not affect the staff and students associated with the Langside campus or any of the other two campuses? I say to Mr Dornan that a competent, credible, well-led board is fundamentally in the interests of all staff and all students. In the pressure lease that has been issued by the Government today, we list the new appointments that I have mentioned—Alec Lincston, former chief executive of West Lothian Council. We have other members of the newly appointed board who have a human resources background, who have a business background, who have a background in governance, who have a background in the university sector, business backgrounds as well as people who have had previous non-executive experience. I am assured and confident that, once members look into the detail and of the biographies of the individuals of stand-in, Mr Dornan will have confidence that the new board will be able to lead the board and the college appropriately. Given the extraordinary sequence of events that led to the deterioration of relationships between the board and students, is the cabinet secretary confident that relationships with students in the board will return to normal? Have there been any instances in any other boards of examples of students' associations passing motions of no confidence in the chair of student reps being excluded from board meetings or students refusing to participate in association elections? I am not aware of any other examples. Obviously, if members have any examples of concerns of bad practice or poor governance or financial irregularities, I can only encourage them to bring them to my attention. I will not stand by and watch poor governance in the sector. The students have to be at the absolute heart of decision making. I have said that involving students in board decisions in that decision making process is not an optional extra. I have five members who still wish to ask a question and intend to take them all. That will have an impact on the debate that comes afterwards. Can I please urge the members that I am going to call to keep it brief? Ken MacDorris, followed by Fiona McLeod. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Checks and balances have already been mentioned by members. Does the cabinet secretary believe that the regional board has a central role to fulfil in relation to checks and balances and whether there is anything that they could have done before now to provide such a check and balance within the system? The regional board will continue to work closely with Glasgow Clyde College to help it to play a full part in achieving its ambitions for the region. The regional board will do all it can to help to rebuild the governance arrangements. The minister will be aware from the recent staff survey that poor morale and unhappiness is not limited to Glasgow Clyde College. I welcome her remarks that she would encourage people to come forward. A constituent who is a college lecturer in Glasgow came to see me just this week to express his dismay and happiness and his anger at the cuts, the merger process and unaccountable management, but he was worried about repercussions of use to come forward. Can I ask the minister to promise his anonymity and other whistleblowers anonymity if they are to come forward and give evidence to her review? Yes, of course. I have already engaged and answered questions in response to members yesterday in this chamber. I am aware of the unison survey and will indeed be engaged in unison very shortly. I meet regularly with all trade unions who have an interest in the education sector. I am aware from the experience in Glasgow Clyde College that members of staff were concerned about their position and felt vulnerable in raising concerns, but I am sure that Mr Macintosh will agree that ministers always act with utmost discretion in those areas. Fiona Hyslund, I am grateful by John Pentland. The cabinet secretary has alluded to how worrying this time is for students at the college, and I am mindful of the pupils at Buclair Academy in my constituency who attend the Anisland campus of Clyde College. I wonder if the cabinet secretary could outline how this change in leadership in the college will reassure students. I am confident that we have the right mix of individuals, of the right calibre, that are now in position as the new board members who understand the priority that we give to quality learning experiences for students and that they are individuals with a proven track record who respect and understand how to engage with students, staff and the wider Glasgow community. Given the money spent in the breach of rules, and in particular the £200,000 spent on legal and professional fees, a lot of money that we consider, for example, that the total requested for the college's student support funding was £423,000, disappear could have a significant impact on college finances. What does the cabinet secretary do to ensure that the malpractices do not leave the college and its students at a financial disadvantage? I say to Mr Pentland and to the chamber that this Government will do everything to ensure that malpractices have no impact on students. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to confirm that, other than Glasgow Clyde College and the very different situation in Coatbridge College, there is no other college that she is aware of that has any problems about responding to the code of governance or suspected financial mismanagement? I am acutely aware of events at Glasgow Clyde College. I am aware of the colleges that have been named and, to some extent, shamed by the Public Audit Committee—well, not so much the colleges—but the individuals involved, the senior management that received severance payments at quite a shocking level. I am not aware of other concerns, but I will always stand ready to listen to concerns from parliamentarians or individuals in the sector. That ends the statement from the cabinet secretary. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 14437, in the name of Jim Hulman, the smoking prohibition children in motor vehicles. Scotland will members wish to take part in the debate should press request.