 The next item of business is a debate on motion 4286, the name of Liz Smith, on the abolition of the Scottish funding council. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons down. I call on Liz Smith to speak to move the motion with Smith eight minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and can I move the motion in my name. Members are very well aware that a large part of the education committee's recent work has been the scrutiny of Scotland's education agencies. On 16 November, it was the turn of the Scottish funding council, and on 7 December 2016, we heard from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work about the proposed changes to the four agencies that deliver skills, enterprise and education functions, including obviously the Scottish funding council. That day, Keith Brown set out the Scottish Government's vision for Scotland's economic strategy, part of which involved the proposed amalgamation of the four enterprise and skills agencies, so that there would be, in his words, strengthened support for the nation's economic ambitions. Mr Brown told us that the establishment of an overarching superboard was necessary in order to effectively align the services that it delivers. He also confirmed, no fewer I have to say than three times to myself, to Johann Lamont and to Daniel Johnson, that the individual boards of the current agencies would be abolished, a statement that was then confirmed by John Swinney at the Audit Committee on 2 February, although he was very careful to add that the abolition did not involve the abolition of the funding council itself, something that had originally been a concern for our colleges and universities when the merger was first proposed. There we had it, on record not from just one Cabinet Secretary but two, that the board of the Scottish funding council would be abolished. Not surprisingly, that raised further questions from the further and higher education sectors and from MSPs about the justification for this move and on what evidence the proposal was based. We received from Mr Brown in response to questioning from the convener of the education committee, Mr Dornan, a robust outline of the reasons for having an overarching board. He said that it would provide much better strategic alignment of the delivery of schools, enterprise and education, a decluttering of the agency landscape, a simplification of the support networks and the removal of the tensions between national and regional delivery. Policy principles that were generally finding favour with University Scotland, Collegy Scotland, Enterprise and Business, but what Mr Brown completely failed to address was the other side of the coin. Exactly why did this strategic alignment mean that the individual agency boards, each with their separate legal status, have to be abolished? What was the evidence for this part of the proposal? My colleagues Tavish Scott and Johann Lamont both asked Keith Brown for a list of the organisations that supported the replacement of the individual boards with a central board. After intense questioning and what appeared to be an inability to answer the question, it emerged that the only body that the cabinet secretary could name was Collegy Scotland. On further investigation, it transpired that, while Collegy Scotland could see merit in a strategic alignment of agency work, it had not made any specific recommendation to abolish the SFC board. Of course, what we know only too well from the 329 submissions made to the consultation and from exchanges in the recent chamber debate on the Highlands and Islands Enterprise, there was no such recommendation from stakeholders to abolish the board. Indeed, I would venture to suggest that a letter arrived on Mr Brown's desk from the current chairman of the Scottish Funding Council board, specifically advising against the abolition of the Scottish Funding Council board. Maybe the Scottish Government might like to confirm the existence of that letter since the attempts via parliamentary questions have so far produced nothing but obfuscation. What really happened, we know now, was that the Scottish Government made up its mind before phase 1 had even begun that the individual boards would be abolished and that they were replaced by a central board. However, the hastily carried out consultation last summer did not flag up any support for this idea. All we got was, do not worry, because in phase 2 that will allow us to debate what is the best governance structure. Unbelievably, ministers could not understand why MSPs and stakeholders were so concerned, but we were surely right to be concerned—a point that was very strongly made by Ross Greer at the committee—when he questioned the logic of making up your mind about what was going to happen and then hoped that you could find enough evidence to support it. Now, of course, we learn that Lorne Creer is recommending that the individual board should not be abolished at all, which is definitely not what we were told by Messrs Swinney and Brown. We learn instead of the recommendation that the boards should remain, but they will now be known as delivery boards—the implication being that the existing functions will change. It is this function change that now becomes the issue. What exactly would a delivery board actually do? In what respect will the powers that they have differ or more likely be reduced from the powers of the existing boards? Specifically, in respect to the SFC, will the board still be a statutory and legal entity? Will it have the powers to be sources of initiative and advice? Will it be able to challenge the Scottish Government in the same way as it does just now and challenge colleges and universities? Will it be Parliament and not the new strategic board that would have powers to allocate resources to the agencies? Will the Scottish funding council continue to have functions way beyond enterprise and skills, such as its research function, which is so crucially important? Little of that is clear at all. Lorne Creerar, in his recommendations, goes on to state that his proposals will not diminish the responsibilities of each agency, but the Derm Delivery Board suggests that their responsibilities will certainly change, and he makes clear that there will now be new formal lines of accountability. It is on this aspect that there is an issue about who will chair the overarching board and who will be accountable to ministers. University of Scotland is very clear indeed. In Andrea Nolan's letter to Keith Brown of 13 December, she says that there is a need for a statutory non-ministerial body with responsibility for regulatory and funding issues affecting higher education. She is also very clear that the body should have a distinct legal personality, completely separate from those bodies within enterprise and skills remit. The Scottish Government clearly believes that the new proposed structure does not heighten the risk of ons reclassification, but others are less sure if the chair of the new board is, in fact, to be a minister. Likewise, the Scottish Government has been very clear that no changes will undermine the autonomy of the higher education sector. Again, cast iron evidence would have to be required to convince the sector that if the chair of the new board is a minister, how that would avoid politically driven reshaping of the sector. That is exactly why the sector wants the firm guarantee that the Scottish funding council board would have the right to question and challenge ministers and institutions as it does now. The long and short, Presiding Officer, is that we have been left with some very considerable inconsistencies between what two cabinet secretaries have told us at separate committees, what stakeholders have advised and what Lorne Crewer is now recommending. It is not at all clear why, in order to have better strategic alignment, you need to unpick the governance structures of all four agencies. There was a complete absence of evidence from phase 1 that supports the Scottish Government's intention and now there is real concern about where on earth the Scottish Government is going. I would suggest that it is this aspect of the whole debacle that is causing greatest concern. The Scottish Government, in recommending better strategic realignment of enterprise and skills and education, has got completely carried away with the theory and not dropped through what the practice would involve, exactly what it did when it meddled in university governance. The message from this Parliament regarding the Scottish Government's treatment of the Highlands and Islands Enterprise could hardly have been more clear at 5 o'clock on 18 January. To suffer one parliamentary defeat may be regarded as misfortune, to suffer two would look like inexcusable carelessness. Thank you very much. I now call on Shirley-Anne Somwell to speak to a move amendment 4286.1, minister, six minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will use today's debate to set out again why the Government is reviewing our enterprise and skills system and to set out the record on our plans for the funding council. I am aware that there is concern and I need some understanding about the Government's intentions, so I welcome this opportunity to clarify our position. I am always happy to work with members to explore constructive ideas about how we can support and maintain sustainable and inclusive economic growth. However, the motion that was originally proposed does not promote that ambition and presents at best a partial view of the Government's position. The motion also provides commentary on the law and clear report that was published just last week. Liz Smith will be aware that the Government is reflecting on the details of the proposals that were outlined by Professor Crier. The views of the ministerial review group and those that were expressed by wider interests in taking forward the development of the strategic board. We will continue to listen to members across the chamber throughout this constructive discussion on the way forward. Mr Brown has said that he will also make a statement to Parliament on our next steps within the coming weeks, but I will begin by putting some important facts on the record. The aim of the enterprise and skills review is to take a fresh action to our long-term ambitions, set out in Scotland's economic strategy, to rank in the top quartile of the OECD countries for productivity, equality, wellbeing and sustainability. We are clear that, through greater alignment between the work of those agencies, we will ensure that they share the collective responsibility for making improvements to Scotland's economic performance. The first phase of the review focused on how we can ensure that all our agencies are working together to support our businesses and users of our skills system. Respondents to the call for evidence said that there was a complex and cluttered landscape and that we needed clearer alignment of our services to deliver our national ambitions. That is why we align those key agencies under a strategic-wide Scotland board, while protecting local decision-making, local management and local delivery. In January, Mr Brown asked Professor Lauren Crier, the chair of HIE, to lead discussions with the other agency chairs and interested ministerial group members, to set out a paper on the principles and a potential outlined structure for a new strategic board. I thank the funding council and the other agencies for their helpful participation in that process. Johann Lamont For clarity, was it possible for the Crier report to come out with a view that an overarching board was not the right solution? Were they free to make that choice, or simply had to decide once the board was there how they were going to make it work? Johann Lamont Minister? Johann Lamont Phase 1 of the enterprise and skills review is complete. The discussions that have followed from that in phase 2 are about how we enact that phase 1. We went through phase 1, and we are now in phase 2, and the Crier report was part of that. It very much is a process for both the stakeholders and the agencies to be able to take part in. I want to make some more progress, but I will be happy to give way later on. Professor Crier's report has been published, and we are grateful to him for producing this. We note that there has been considerable support for Professor Crier's views from stakeholders and a recognition of its focus on a collaboration across the agencies is essential to success. I would highlight again that the Crier report was published less than a week ago and sets out a number of proposals for the Government to consider. I invite members to give their views in the debate and outwith to me and the rest of the Government, because we will be going forward in a listening mode until the cabinet secretary makes his statement to Parliament. I want to hear those certainly. Liz Smith Does the minister tell us whether she was surprised to have the recommendation from Lauren Crier that the boards of the individual agencies would actually exist when the Scottish Government told us that they would not? Professor Crier was asked to work with other agency chairs to take forward work in phase 2. Professor Crier does that, and with the chairs it is up to him to answer for it, but we are very grateful for the work that he has put in and the other agencies as well. I can give members full assurance on that we recognise the value of the funding council as a national strategic arm lines body, providing knowledge and expertise on how we focus our investment across the college and university sector. We will also ensure that any future model supports the Haldane principle that decisions about what to spend research funds on should be made by researchers and not politicians. Liz Smith did bring up concerns regarding ONSE classification. Officials have been in very close dialogue with ONSE officials over the recent period. They have reviewed the 2016 act and have been offered advice in relation to the enterprise and skills review. ONSE themselves are satisfied that, on the basis of the information available, neither the act nor the review will impact on whether HE bodies in Scotland are public or private sector. I hope that that does allay the concerns, both within the chamber and within stakeholders. I see the review as a real opportunity for the Scottish funding council not only to build on its successes but to focus on driving improvements in the future. The ambitions of the enterprise and skills review are not about the architecture of governance but about closer alignment and collaboration across the bodies to drive real improvements in outcomes. My focus for the future will be on working with the funding council to ensure that we have an absolute and effective focus on our ambitions for excellence and equity in education. In the meantime, the funding council is very much getting on with its important day job. Indeed, just a few weeks ago, it issued its indicative allocations for colleges and universities for 2017-18. To conclude, we are reviewing our enterprise and skills system because Scotland is performing well but must do better. We will maintain a national strategic body that allocates funding independently of ministers to our colleges, universities and research. The reform in the setting of key local and national economic ambitions for all our agencies can help to put Scotland among the top-performing OECD nations. I will work with MSPs from across the chamber and stakeholders beyond to achieve that goal. I move the amendment in my name. The plans from the Scottish Government to create a superboard threaten to be unworkable, are certainly unclear and threaten the independence of our universities. The need to boost this country's productivity and performance is critical. If we believe in a high-wage, high-skill economy, the need to focus on enterprise agencies is vital. For the phase 1 report of the enterprise and skills was disappointing. Beyond broad intent, it failed to articulate what needed to change and only had one clear proposal—the creation of a single overarching board to control each of the agencies involved in enterprise skills and tertiary education. The creation of this board will create a body of unprecedented scope. The budget will be in the billions and be larger than the Government's budgets for police, housing, social security, environment and culture combined. You have to ask, how long are its meetings going to last? They will certainly need to serve some pretty strong coffee. However, the serious question is this. Can a single board truly provide governance and guidance to such a diverse and important range of activities, from regional development to academic learning, from scientific research to vocational education, from industrial support to apprenticeships? Some of those clearly and wholly are within the domain of productivity and innovation. Of course, the university's role in research and academic understanding makes a contribution to productivity, but its impacts and benefits are much wider than that. By placing them in a governance structure with a productivity focus, there is a very real risk that damage will be done that will not easily be reversed. In the list of different economic activities that are aligned, which I think is a fair and representative summary of the issues that are involved, Mr Johnson essentially sets out the dilemma for the Government, because there are connections between all the different elements of policy that Mr Johnson referred to. He admitted that, in relation to the exception of university research, it contributes to productivity within the economy, and that is the objective of the Government's review to create greater alignment in that respect. I accept that they touch, but the real aspect for the universities is that, while they touch on productivity, the vast bulk of their scope lies well beyond the simple, narrow, teleological, utilitarian description that he sets out. If I can move on to the career report, which was published last week by Kate Forbes and later by the Scottish Government, it is an attempt to clarify the solutions, but it simply raises more questions than it answers. For one, it seems to contradict the Deputy First Minister, who revealed in a parliamentary answer that individual boards would be scrapped. However, according to career, they will be retained as delivery boards, whatever that means. Importantly, it is hard to see how this new strategic body will streamline at all. Delivery boards, sub-committees and a new superboard will mean two additional layers of administration that will be created. The report suggests that the board may have the ability to set budgets of the individual agencies, which presents a worrying obfuscation in an already obscure budget process, as we all know too well from recent weeks. Parliament and the public must be able to scrutinise where public money is being spent. The report also makes the very strong suggestion of a ministerial chair. Indeed, there is a special box section that celebrates how well a ministerial chair has worked for the convention of Highlands and Islands. However, the risk is that a ministerial chair will bring with it the prospect that the UNS could reclassify universities as public bodies. I accept that the minister said that she has assurances from that, and I would hope that in summation that a minister will pledge to publish that evidence, because I think that it is vitally important. We have been here before. When colleges were merged, when new central structures were created, we were reassured that their independence would not be altered. Their ability to borrow and hold assets would remain unchanged, but we all know what happened. The impact on universities would be many times greater than that of universities, with millions stripped from their balance sheets and their ability to leverage investment slashed. Our universities are a success story. They help this country well above its weight. They are outstanding in producing spin-out companies. They are many times more effective than universities in the rest of the UK in terms of their ability to attract research funding. Given the track record and its strength, you have to ask what is the problem that the review is trying to fix? How are our universities impeding productivity in skills development, but, most importantly, given their enduring contribution to Scotland, why put them at risk through the misguided muddled reform of their governance? Thank you very much. I move to the open debate. In a short debate, as you know, time is tight. Speeches are for minutes. Please, Liam Kerr, followed by James Dorman, Mr Kerr, Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The task of the Scottish Funding Council is to care for and develop the whole system of colleges and universities and their connections with and contribution to Scotland's educational, social and cultural life. The words of Dr John Kemp, interim director of the SFC to the Education Committee on 16 November 2016. It is a laudable, positive and forward-looking remit. It is one that surely has the backing of everyone in this chamber. Indeed, everyone who wishes to make our country once again a leader in the field of education and academic achievement. But if that is the task of the SFC, what of its governance? As Liz Smith said, we have had confirmation from two cabinet secretaries at two separate committees that the individual boards of the current agencies, including that of the SFC, will be abolished. Indeed, at the Public Audit Committee on 2 February, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, John Swinney, all but confirmed that the SFC as an entity needs to tread carefully. The following being taken from the official report of the committee that day, Liz Smith, so it is correct to say that there will be a new funding council model. Obviously, the board of the existing funding council is to go. The argument would be that there would have to be a new body. John Swinney, there will be changes to the arrangements under the proposals that have been set out today. Yes, but why? In his letter of 17 January, asking Professor Crerar to chair a review of governance, the cabinet secretary stated that stronger governance could best be achieved by creating a single overarching board to ensure robust oversight, evaluation and common targets that drive hard alignment between our agencies. There does not appear to be any evidence for that statement. Out of 329 submissions made to the consultation on the Enterprise and Skills review, not one stakeholder recommended the boards be abolished. Under repeated questioning by the Public Audit Committee, Mr Swinney could not point to one single piece of evidence that showed the abolishment of the SFC board had been recommended as a solution to governance issues. Now, Professor Crerar has recommended that the individual boards should not be abolished, but be renamed delivery boards, albeit under the direct control of a strategic board. Surely, evidence showing likely achievements of desired outcomes should drive policy rather than starting with a policy than trying to make the evidence fit it, or worse, simply asserting a position without robust evidence to support it. I also recall a debate in January, in which we're out fears that the SFC's position as a non-departmental public body operating at arm's length was under threat, as the distance between ministers and the SFC is increasingly blurred. That alongside fears for the independence of the SFC and indeed the independence of our higher education establishments, brought by the establishment of an overarching strategic board under ministerial control. Universities Scotland could not have been clearer. We need to make sure that universities are independent actors, that we are working in partnership with government but still working as autonomous charities, that we are another force of initiative in society and not being brought into a directive relationship from government. Independence from government could disappear as a result of those changes. The SFC could become another arm of this ever more centralised state. The independence of our higher education establishments is sacrosanct, and the proposed changes would likely move us ever closer towards direct government control. It is clear that the Government decided long ago absent any evidence that an overarching strategic board under ministerial control was the way forward. The Government should reflect on why it lost a vote on HIE on 18 January, step back from the brink and think long and hard before it proceeds with those proposals. For that reason, I urge support for the motion today. No need to say hello back, just continue please. Yes, sorry, Presiding Officer. The role of the Scottish Funding Council was, as already mentioned by Liz Smith, was explored in the committee's evidence last November, including the importance of being able to demonstrate to the key stakeholders such as universities and colleges where it is performing a challenge function to government. The discussion on that role highlighted the need for further clarity on the implications on the review on the Scottish Funding Council. Given the proposal, the board will be replaced by an overarching body. Having heard that, we decided to get the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work in on that. We explored the evidence base. We talked about the process followed by the Government in generating its first recommendations on the further work plan for phase 2. We then wrote to the Cabinet Secretary following the meeting, seeking more information on which body suggests the removal of the SFC to be replaced by an overarching body. I know that that has been mentioned here, and they say that there is no evidence of anybody suggesting such a thing. However, if you look at some of the responses in the consultation, the Scottish Enterprise called for the creation of a Scottish Strategic Economic Leadership Board. SDS has for a national sustainable economic development board that was permanent, while the University of Strathclyde advocated for a strategic board at Scotland-wide level to exercise strong leadership and reinforce collaboration. Four minutes, Ms Smith. Whereas College of Scotland stated the need for an overarching enterprise and skills board for Scotland, all suggestions that it was not happy with the way that the system was working at present and that it was looking for a more joined-up way of thinking. The Federation for Small Businesses, SCVO, the Scottish Local Authorities Economic Development Group, University Scotland and HIE all suggested that the current system is complex and required greater co-ordination. All things that I think, I hope that we would all agree, is the aim behind what the Government is doing. In my opinion, that is not about diluting the power to challenge the institutions that form a further and higher education system, nor about dissolving the autonomy, certainly not about dissolving the autonomy of Scotland's universities. It's about that focus and it's about ensuring that all the agencies are working together in a co-ordinated fashion to deliver that top 20 per cent. Yes, I will give way. Liz Smith disagrees with the statements that he made about that evidence, but that evidence is for about greater collaboration. Where was the evidence about abolition of the individual boards? James Dornan. I did mention that in my opening comments that they might not have asked for the board, but they did ask for it. They clearly asked for an overarching joined-up way of thinking, and that's not what it is at present. We have to remember that we're at the end of phase one, we're in phase two, and for me this is a debate that's too early. I do think that it's not for the purposes of trying to tease out any more information than we've already received. I do think that Liz Smith gave the game away just at the very end of it. I mentioned in HIE that the Scottish Government got defeated there, and this is another opportunity to defeat the Scottish Government. That should not be about defeating the Scottish Government in something like that. That should be about trying to get the information that you require and getting it the way that it's easiest to get, not about having a debate. There's lots of things in education that could have been debated today. I'm surprised that you picked this one, because this is a process, and we're in the middle of that process just now. For me, I think that we should wait till we're near the end of the process and see what's coming out of phase two. The career report was last week, we're in phase two of this, and I think that let's wait and see what happens, and then if you get things you want to call the Government on, feel free to do so, and my committee will certainly be doing the same. Thank you very much, Johann Lamont, followed by Ross Greer, Ms Lamont, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I just say to the convener of the Education and Committee, while it's not our job simply to go after the Government, it's equally not the job of Government back benches to protect the Government regardless of what proposals it brings forward. The fact of the matter is that this is an unhappy and unconvincing piece of work hampered by lack of clarity from the very beginning about the purpose of the review and the actions that would follow it. I think that we'd been charitable if we said that this has been ill thought through, and we should remember that the consultation and review of Enterprise and Other Bodies took place over one month over the summer. That is deeply unsatisfactory, and there was never any explanation given on the need for such a rush. No clarity about why, all of a sudden, it needed to be done so quickly without bringing people with them. I think that that has been a major problem. No one is going to disagree that we want to have a stronger economy, that we want coherence, but what the Government is now doing is conflating that desire with its set of proposals. We shouldn't be divided on the question of wanting a stronger economy and the question of alignment and all the rest of it. What we are dividing on is the proposal that has been brought forward by the Government allegedly to tackle that problem. In evidence to the education committee, there was a spectacular failure, I think, by the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, even to explain what he was trying to do. I would recommend it as a little bit of light reading for you to see a proposal being interrogated and the Cabinet Secretary unable to explain his purpose. He couldn't explain or justify the timing of the consultation. He couldn't provide any evidence of any group or anybody that independently brought forward the solution of an overarching board. Of course, people are agreeing that there is a problem, but no one suggested that as the solution. He was unable to give any clarity about what would happen to the Scottish funding counselling and seemed rather vague about its role in relation to education if not to enterprise. We all agree that decluttering in itself is a good thing, but it is important that people talk to each other and work with each other. However, we also know that all the evidence tells us that we need to have decisions made as locally as possible. Local economic circumstances and pressure are different throughout the country. In our remote and rural areas, we are tackling the question of depopulation, the potential for the use of the internet. In our city Glasgow, we have a very different set of problems. Why create the sense that there is only one model that fits our enterprise and skills agenda? That, to me, is utter nonsense, and goodness me, can people not simply talk to each other. The reality is that the Scottish Government started from the end. It wanted an overarching board, and since then all that we have seen is post-hoc rationalisation to justify it. Now in the face of pressure and concerns, it is shifting the argument that we are getting rid of all the boards. We are not getting rid of all the boards. HIE is going to have complete nut or control, but it is not going to have complete nut or control because there is going to be an overarching board. When you say that we are in the middle of a process, the fact of the matter is that we have a stage 1, which said what the Scottish Government without any evidence wanted, and stage 2 is now about finding a way to implement that. That is not the way to take that work forward. It was most obvious in relation to the funding council that the legal responsibilities had not even been thought about. I recognise the need for co-ordination, but I personally think that that is the job of Government. It is the job of Government to do cross-portfolio thinking and making sure that people are working together. I would make a plea to the Government. Since after 2007, the Government got rid of community Scotland. We lost all that expertise in relation to housing that could take to the Government advice, information and skills on how a housing agency could develop our work. I think that that was a loss. Losing the capability of those bodies to speak powerfully to Government—maybe not in public, but giving advice, strategic understanding and their expertise, I genuinely believe, is an absolute loss. I do not understand— No, I am sorry, Ms Lamont. Could you please just conclude? I conclude by saying that I do urge the Scottish Government to think again, and if you do that, I am sure that across the board, people will support you. Thank you very much. Ross Greer to be followed by Tavish Scott. Mr Greer, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Back in January, I said that I was disappointed with the Government's pursuit of centralisation at any cost without providing the evidence, and two months later, nothing has changed. Concerns have been raised time and again. They have come from across the political spectrum, from our partners in education such as the UCU in University of Scotland, and by experts such as the Royal Society of Edinburgh. What we are all concerned about is significant changes being made to the university sector without their implications being properly thought through or evidenced. Despite it being an area of acute and widely held concern, the Government has still not ruled out a minister chairing the new superboard, though today it provides an opportunity for it to do so. The aim of those reforms is clear, to focus the efforts of those bodies towards economic strategy. However, it also increases Government influence over and proximity to them, and it is worth noting that economic development is not the sole purpose of all four of those organisations. The new report for the Government by Professor Greer is welcome, but it continues the centralisation agenda, and it has done little to allay concerns. It is called for the new superboard to have clear authority to enforce change and for the transformation of the existing agency boards into mere conduits for delivery. The option of the superboard being chaired by a minister remains open. Why, with such significant concerns about the proposal, the Government cannot at least offer a gesture of goodwill by ruling out a ministerial chair is beyond me? There are two key concerns, though, about the impact that those reforms will have on Scottish universities. Their status is not classified as public bodies, and their freedom to determine their own academic goals. With that in mind, an increase in Government control over the SFC or at least a strong appearance of that would be irresponsible. I hear what the minister has said about dialogue with the Office for National Statistics, but bearing in mind that the education committee has asked for this evidence repeatedly, it would be fantastic if we could see that as well. Such a reclassification seriously could harm the ability of Scottish universities to attract funding, for example from charitable bodies, particularly those based down south. Those are concerns that the Government is well aware of. The committee published a report stating that the ability of the funding council to develop and initiate policy itself is key to its ability to function, and that it is of vital importance that universities are not reclassified as public bodies. Both the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work and for Education and Skills and their appearances before our committee were unable to provide anything approaching evidence of the effect that the superboard proposal could have on research funding. Nor was sufficient evidence brought forward to back up the supposed demands for such a centrise board, as members have already mentioned. That brought into question not just the proposal itself but the process by which we have got to this point, which I will touch on quickly. Those Government reforms not only threaten the status and the funding of Scottish universities, they also raise the question of their purpose. Are Scottish universities to be simply another tool in our economic strategy? No, that is not the ethos that underpins the academic and intellectual freedom of our universities since the enlightenment. Again, that was noted by the education committee in our report. Significant elements of the roles that those agencies fulfil are outwith the scope of the review. The committee recommended that the Government quickly set out what impact the review would have on areas outwith its scope. The issue of evidence has been key to me here. The Government has simply been unable to provide it. At the nub of the issue with the process, in stage 1, the Government decided to embark on that route towards the superboard, giving themselves no regular room to back out of it. However, there seems to be no evidence of what the effect will be, for example, on university research funding. That is apparently for phase 2. The Cabinet Secretary for Education did concede in committee that there are relevant policy considerations for phase 1, but they were not evidenced in phase 1. To make a clear decision to pursue a policy without having first gathered evidence of its effects is not responsive. The Greens are not prepared at this point to support it. I thank Liz Smith for bringing this debate to Parliament this afternoon, not least of which, because it gives us a chance to look at the career report and the implications of that. Last Thursday, the Presiding Officer ruled in response to the points of orders that were made about the publication of the career report that the Government should respond to that. The first chance that we had was yesterday, and the Government did not respond to that, so today is the first chance that we have. It happens to be in opposition time. However, I think that Parliament will notice that the Government has chosen not yet to bring forward any opportunity in its own time for us to debate these matters. I also want to say that the career report does need some careful examination, because it says some very profound things about how we run our country. If you, as the Government—and this could be of any Government—wish to control from the centre, then do the honest thing and just abolish those boards and abolish the whole organisation altogether, because the logic of what ministers may or may not want is to have those organisations in house. Read carefully what Creerar actually says. What he says on the delivery boards—the word is descriptive and very clear—is that all board members will be required to take direction from the chair—the chair of the board—insuring, and I quote, hard alignment with the other agencies and others to meet the aims and aspirations of the board, of the strategic board. The repurposed delivery boards—repurposed must be a word that I was never taught in English at school, but anyway—the repurposed delivery boards should fulfil the functions described and ensure that the aims of the strategic board can be delivered effectively while also ensuring that governance standards are maintained. It is crystal clear, if Government implement this report, what will happen to the funding council. You actually have to get to page 28 out of 31 before there is even mention of the funding council in the Creerar report. Even in that, there is no analysis whatsoever of the different types of function that these organisations undertake. In the conclusions and recommendations of the Creerar report, it says, and I quote, that, through the strategic board, there will be direct accountability to Scottish ministers for the collective responsibility of each agency. Now, how that is consistent, Presiding Officer, with the words that have been spoken by ministers about the independence, the academic independence and other independence of the funding council is quite beyond me. I listened very carefully to what the minister said in her remarks in response to Liz Smith. She said that ministers were now reflecting on the Creerar report and, therefore, they would decide in fullness of time what they were going to do about it. That means that they yes have the Creerar report, but they could go back to their original position, as Liz Smith illustrated earlier, of abolishing all four boards. That was not even clear from the ministerial introduction to this afternoon's debate. We need to be very clear about the dangers that those who articulate on behalf of the university and college sector have made clear in response to this debate. The University of Scotland says today that we seek recognition by the Government that the statutory body boards are sources of initiative and advice and challenge to government, rather than just a challenge for the delivery of priorities set by the Scottish Government or the strategic board. Again, that is entirely inconsistent with the Creerar report. You cannot have that both ways. You either believe in Creerar in which case and implement Creerar in which case the funding council board will not be worth having noble the board of high. Interestingly, none of us seem to defend Scottish Enterprise or Skills Development Scotland. I feel kind of sorry for them because they never get a mention of this one, but on the funding council and high, those boards will cease to exist other than to do exactly what they are told to do by the Government minister and by the strategic board. That is the choice that we have, and Parliament should vote on that this afternoon. Thank you very much, Mr Scott. Jenny Gilruth, with follow-up by Ross Thompson. Ms Gilruth, please. In 2014, Scotland was ranked 19th for productivity levels among OECD countries, placing us only at the top of the third quartile. In 2013, Scotland was in exactly the same position. More of the same will not get the job done. We know that we need to modernise our approach to enterprise and skills development as we worked toward moving our productivity into the top quartile of OECD nations. Scotland has had great success in attracting investment and in helping companies to innovate, export and expand. Indeed, £500 million is now being invested by this Government through the Scottish growth fund. We know that we have real strength in our university sector too, five of which rank in the times higher education university rankings. But now is not a time for complacency. It is the time to ensure that we drive greater innovation to improve our productivity. Our university has received almost £90 million of research funding a year from EU sources alone, so that is of particular importance in a post-Brexit era. As the minister has outlined today, the context for today's debate stems from the enterprise and skills review. The results from the public call for evidence identified four key themes across the whole system. First of all, the cluttered landscape of the current system. Secondly, the difficulty in accessing support. Thirdly, a perceived tension between national and regional approaches. Lastly, a lack of partnership working. Professor Creer's report, however, is about looking at how we ensure that all our agencies work together in a co-ordinated way to deliver the maximum impact for our economy. It is indeed the lack of co-ordination that was flagged up through the public consultation. We see that in the Government's review of education right now. Many members in the chamber spoke in the education committee's debate recently, which considered the role of Education Scotland, the SQA, Skills Development Scotland and, of course, the Scottish Funding Council. Those agencies are being held to account by the work of that committee, and rightly so, but let's not forget that the Scottish Funding Council benefitted from over £1.7 billion of Scottish Government funding last year—public money. We need a national body for FE and HE to allocate funding, and that has to be done independently of Scottish ministers. Fundamentally, however, the establishment of an overarching board will not affect the autonomy of Scotland's universities or how they are governed. The Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that academic freedom continues to be protected. Indeed, only four months ago, the Deputy First Minister said in the chamber that I can give that absolute cast iron commitment to Parliament today that there will be no Government control of universities. Furthermore, it was this SNP Government that strengthened the definition of academic freedom in the 2016 Higher Education Governance Act. But let's reflect on where we are. The status quo isn't working. Look at the OECD statistics. We need Scotland to be sector leading, and the current arrangements do not allow us to do so. It's also important to note that the Enterprise and Skills review is not just about governance. There are nine other action points that the review considers, including recognising national and regional differences, as Johann Lamont has mentioned today, promoting an open and international economy, developing innovation and how skills provision will drive economic success. There is, of course, an ongoing dialogue between the Scottish Government and the SFC on the Enterprise and Skills review, but that is only phase 2 of the review. I very much look forward, as I am sure all MSPs do, to hearing from the cabinet secretary when he returns to Parliament to update us all about what actions the Government intends to take forward. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It appears that, before stage 1 of the Enterprise and Skills review was even on the books, the Scottish Government had already made up its mind. There is going to be a strategic alignment of the delivery of skills, enterprise and education, and, as has been confirmed by the Government and two of its cabinet secretaries—one of them missing this afternoon—it means abolition of the SFC board, as well as the boards of the other agencies and their replacement by a strategic board. A decision taken without the evidence to justify it. Therefore, there is only one way to see this, as yet again another centralising power grab from the Scottish Government. There is a fundamental inconsistency at the heart of the Scottish Government's argument for abolishing the SFC board. As the Scottish Government of Scotland has highlighted, it simply cannot, on one hand, acknowledge the need for the responsible autonomy and independence of universities and the need for the SFC to be at arm's length from ministers and, virtually in the same breath, talk about the new Superboard being chaired by a Government minister, having power to enforce its view on the SFC, creating the legitimate concern of a puppet board at the mercy of the political will and whim of the Scottish Government. I welcome the minister's update on the classification. However, I am sure that she will be happy to provide that to Parliament, and if she has that in writing, she will provide that to Parliament. There is a genuine concern that the proposed abolition of the SFC board potentially risks the autonomy and independence of our educational institutions. I am sure that the minister would agree that the risk of reclassification to the public sector would be catastrophic for our university's capacity to attract investment to Scotland and its financial sustainability more broadly. A meeting of the Public Audit Committee on 2 February, the cabinet secretary refused to fully commit to dropping the reorganisation plans, even if they would risk reclassification. UCU Scotland has echoed that sentiment. I quote, This is a very real concern, and we must ensure that arm's length, non-departmental public body status of the SFC is retained in more than just name. Therefore, I hope that today we will get that cast iron guarantee from the Government, because that would be welcome. The Scottish Government is taking, in my view, a reckless, cavalier attitude to the autonomy and sustainability of our universities, which is both irresponsible and dangerous. Simply put, those proposals have significant implications for the ability of our universities to continue to provide the excellent, globally renowned education that they do across Scotland. As I mentioned earlier, the Scottish Government's proposal is void of any compelling basis in evidence. The cabinet secretary at Public Audit Committee said that what drives enterprise and school review is the fact that the Scottish economy is not performing in the top quartile of productivity assessments. However, it is abundantly clear from the work of both committees, Public Audit and Education, that decisions have been taken to abolish the SFC board and other agency boards, totally failing intangible evidence. Ministers have to date completely failed to detail what evidence or advice that they have received to support the abolition of the SFC in its current format. It is clear from the work of the Parliament that the Government's proposals are far from transparent. However, what is also clear is that the Scottish Government's centralising reforms are unwanted, unnecessary and uncorroborated. I therefore urge members to support the motion in the name of Liz Smith today. I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this afternoon's debate and to support the amendment in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville. I have been struck listening to the proceedings and the wider conversation that was provoked by the phase 1 report of the enterprise and skills review by the water lake habit of politics to find and amplify the smallest of fishers in our deliberations. While I would never challenge the premise of the dialectic in our discourse, we can only make progress through debates such as this if we resist the temptation to indulge in the narcissism of small differences. I fear, however, that on the question of a strategic board— Please sit down, please sit down, Simon. I fear, however—I have had more time, I would—I fear, however, that on the question of a strategic board, that is exactly what some of the opposition are in danger of doing. That would be a reckless approach at any time, but it is particularly so giving the economic headwinds that we face as a consequence of Brexit and the importance of enterprise and skills to realising the Scottish Government's economic strategy. It is also disappointing because there is, in my opinion, an opportunity for consensus being missed. I believe, or at least I hope, that all parties in this chamber are united in support of the Government's vision of a Scotland that ranks among the top-performing OECD nations for productivity, equality, sustainability and wellbeing. I am sorry that I do not have time. I certainly hear, week after week, from Opposition members in this place, entreaties for action by this Government to improve Scotland's economic performance. I therefore find it rather disheartening that, when presented with substantive proposals to see greater co-ordination and collaboration between Scotland's enterprise and skills agencies, the response of some opposition has been one of dogmatic resistance to any change whatsoever. I am sorry that I do not have time. It seems to me that the Conservatives, in tabling this afternoon's debate, have yet again become somewhat delirious from the rarefied heights of second party status and forgotten that opposition should not be reduced to obstination. It is simply not credible on any matter of policy to demand a response from the Government only to then reflexively reject any proposition put forward by the Government. I welcome the vision set-out in the face-on report of the enterprise and skills review of greater co-operation and co-ordination between agencies. I also welcome the contribution that Professor Crerar's report makes to the second phase of the review. I recognise the importance of role played by the Scottish Funding Council and I welcome the Government's amendment, which not only recognises the fundamental importance of the Haldane principle but also the continuing need for a national body for further and higher education. I believe that, while it is vital that we maximise the contributions that universities make towards the development of the highly-skilled workforce, it is also important to the member to broader cultural and societal value generated by higher education. When studying music as an undergraduate and as a postgraduate, I experience many well-meaning individuals questioning what economic relevance gaining such a skillset would bring. Indeed, it has become an honour for debates on music education across the UK and beyond to be framed in terms of utility rather than its intrinsic value as an art. While it is imperative that our colleges and universities equip people with skills to compete and a labour market that will become ever more competitive, particularly with the continued advance of robotics and automation, it is equally important to the member that education can be an end in itself and not just a means. The approach that is set out by the Government in its amendment, in my opinion, gets the balance right. We must maximise the use of resources at our disposal to ensure that Scotland has a workforce to meet the challenges of tomorrow and ensure economic growth while preserving independence of a national body for further and higher education. I don't know. I'm sorry. You must stop over running your time. I ask Colin Beane, who is in great close with Labour, for four minutes, Mr Gray, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let's start our debate off today by going back a little bit over the process that has brought us to today. I think that it's worth stepping back even a little further prior to the stage 1 review consultation. We are here today because of a paragraph in the SNP manifesto, in which we are all the hallmarks of a paragraph inserted in a late realisation that the manifesto said nothing about enterprise and skills, and it better says something, so a review was placed in there. Having done that, we then find ourselves lumbered with the review. Having had a review, it becomes incumbent on ministers to change something as a result of the review, and thus it was, I think, without evidence. Much to the surprise, I think, of many of those involved in the stage 1 review, we ended up with the proposal of the overarching superboard. We've now moved on to the Crerar report, which is good, I think, in the sense that it insists that we keep the subsidiary boards, including the funding council. Of course, it does appear to support the overarching superboard. However, as Johann Lamont exposed rather neatly, the fact of the matter is that Lorne Crerar was given that, as he was given, and then asked to work on how that structure could be made to work. His answer was that the other boards had to be reduced in status, because it must be reduced in status to delivery boards, so that they would lose their capacity to take strategic decisions and perhaps financial decisions as well, and that they would do the bidding of the overarching strategic board. Professor Crerar should be chaired by a minister, although he pulls back from actually making that as a recommendation and examines the other possibilities. The Crerar report leaves us still with the two major concerns that have been expressed ever since the beginning of this process with regard to the funding council. First, the potential for a new degree of ministerial control to jeopardise the ONS classification of our university sector. I heard what the minister said, and I heard the cast iron guarantee given by Jenny Gilruth, although I have to ask what position she is in to give us that cast iron guarantee. However, Daniel Johnson is right. We have been here before with colleges, and we have been here before with the futures trust as well, where cast iron guarantees have been given about ONS classification, which has turned out to be simply wrong. Perhaps the more fundamental concern that we still have is the degree to which the autonomy of our universities may be jeopardised. Now, I know that the minister talked about the Haldane principle and her amendment this evening does that too, but that is not enough. Autonomy is not just about research decisions being made by researchers. Academic and intellectual freedom is a concept much wider than that, much more important than that, in which our universities must be able to exercise without fear or favour. Mr Scott is absolutely right. Hard alignment, as is posited in the Crer report, cannot mean anything except control by the overarching strategic board. It cannot mean anything except a loss of autonomy. I think that the UCU summed this up very well in its briefing paper when it says that it cannot, on the one hand, acknowledge the need for responsible autonomy of universities and the need for the SFC to be arm's length and then talk about the new Superboard, chaired by a minister, having the power to enforce its view. The fundamental error here is that a utilitarian understanding of our universities has been solely about driving productivity and economic growth. That is something that we do not support, it is something that the universities do not support, their students do not support, their academics do not support and their trade unions do not support. This is a fundamentally flawed proposal and the Government should think again. Paul-on-John Swinney to close the Government, Cabinet Secretary. Five minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It might help if I went through for Parliament the policy process that the Government has undertaken here to try to address some of the issues that were underpinning the debate and some of the ground that I went through with the Public Audit Committee when I appeared before the committee some weeks ago. The Government has considered the challenges that were set out by Jenny Gilruth in her contribution about the need to improve economic performance within Scotland and to recognise that it is not what it should be. Johann Lamont made the point in her contribution that that was an issue that bound us all together, that we wanted to improve that economic performance. When asking the question at the start of phase 1 about that performance and about the desire to improve that performance, we had to ask the question, why is that the case? When we consulted with the ministerial review group and other interested parties, the answers came back about the cluttered landscape and the need for partnership working and the requirement for us to ensure that there was more compatibility between the interventions that were taken forward by different aspects of our economic and skills development community. From that evidence, the Government came to the conclusion that the most appropriate way of ensuring that we got greater coherence and greater alignment was by taking forward the proposals for the super board proposal, which were the summation of the phase 1 conclusions. The Government came to that position—forgive me one second. The issue that I rehearsed with Liz Smith, and Liz Smith has talked a lot about the evidence, what the Government did was a policy analysis to come to a conclusion about what approach was the right one to take, and we, at the end of that process, came to the conclusion about the importance of securing greater alignment through the work of a super board, and that explains the process that the Government is going to take. Iain Gray I want to pursue the cluttered landscape point, because we are assured that each of the individual agencies will continue to have delivery boards, but there will be an overarching super strategic board. Surely that is increasing the clutter in the landscape, not decreasing it. What it does is it gives us, Mr Gray, the opportunity to reconcile some of the issues of overlap, duplication and clutter, which emerge over time. When we look at the areas of responsibility here, when we talk about the journey that is involved for young people when they are working their way through the education system, where it can involve the skills development Scotland landscape, the college landscape, the university landscape, the links to the wider business environment involving either HIE or Scottish Enterprise, the areas of potential overlap and the need for greater coherence is illustrated by that very point, and that is why the Government came to that conclusion. The relevance of that, of course, is contained in the point that Mr Johnson raised, which I responded to in the intervention earlier on. Mr Johnson went through helpfully, I thought, a whole range of different elements of the economic system, which are key to driving productivity. Of course, they are all the subject of those four agencies where the Government is intent on creating and securing greater coherence and greater alignment. Liz Smith, I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention. I do not think that anybody doubts what you have just posited in terms of the need for collaboration and economic ambitions. That is not the point. The point is about where the evidence is to abolish the boards as part of that process. Was it correct that the chairman of the Scottish Funding Council sent a letter to the Scottish Government advising that the Scottish Funding Council board should not be abolished? We have involved the agencies in the dialogue around that particular question, but the point that I want to make to Liz Smith—and it is helpful that she has made that intervention—is that everybody agrees about the necessity for coherence and alignment. Strangely, that does not make any appearance in the motion from Liz Smith before Parliament today, not a word of it. When Johann Lamont makes the plea for greater coherence, Daniel Johnson, Liz Smith, Ross Greer or even Tavish Scott, it does not make a single appearance in the motion from Liz Smith today. That, in a sense, validates, I think, some of the points that Tom Arthur was making. What we have here is the opposition prepared to address one particular element of the governance arrangements that they clearly do not like, and I totally understand that they do not like it, but without coming forward with the route that addresses the need for coherence that will improve the economic performance of Scotland. That is what the Government has tried to do in this exercise, and as the minister made clear in her opening remarks, the Government will continue to engage in Parliament. Mr Brown will come back to Parliament with a further statement to set out the Government's intention in the response to those issues. I am grateful that this debate has occurred, and I am grateful, too, that I have the chance to participate in it, at least because of the very similar debate that the Scottish Conservatives held about HIE several weeks ago. Now, whilst the SFC and an enterprise agency such as HIE seek to do very different things, there are some common themes. Both benefit from specialist expertise on their boards, both are being set up with a degree of independence from government, which allows them to operate in a detached yet constructive way, but both inexplicably are under threat. As the tentacles of this centralising Government once more reach out to bring yet another specialist body under ministerial control. I would like to turn first to the report of Professor Carrera, which emerged last week. In one sense, the report is to be welcomed in so far as it recognises the value of the independent boards, but the devil quite truly is in the detail. Many have already commented about delivery boards and how they risk turning what are robust arms-length boards into simply an extension of government. University Scotland says that this would be, and I quote, a detrimental change to their role. Professor Carrera notes that the chair of the strategic board could be ministerial or independent, but the language of his report infers that he would prefer a ministerial-led approach. In the view of many, that would impair the independence of the boards. Professor Carrera's report calls for real hard alignment of agency outcomes and for the culture of collaboration to be embedded, but those agencies who do not conform to this culture should be challenged. Those phrases, the language in my view, all point to centralisation repackaged. On those benches, we are very sceptical indeed of the Carrera recommendations, notwithstanding its recognition of the principle of retaining independent boards. I accept at face value what Keith Brown said yesterday about considering this report, and I also accept that it does not represent Government policy yet, but many of us are fearful. Given the Government's record and its centralising instincts, we have good reason to fear. Questions such as those are not about party-political affiliation. Those points apply to any Government of whatever political stripe. Anyone who cares about the workings of democracy should mind about that. It is about how much Government should do. It is an issue that goes to the very heart of politics. How far should Government step forward and how far should it step back? Because what is there to fear, scrutiny of Government, is a normal part of the political process. I am grateful to Mr Cameron for giving way, and he sets out a very important analysis about the relationship between Government and public bodies and public authority. There is also another issue about accountability, where people at Mr Cameron will want to hold the Government accountable for the economic performance of Scotland. If the Government believes that there are measures that we need to take to strengthen that economic performance, does Mr Cameron not understand the role and the right of Government to take forward that agenda? As the opposition, it is our role to hold the Government to account. Ministers are answerable to Parliament. They appear in this chamber in committees week in, week out, and those boards have a similar role, too. University of Scotland is saying in its briefing that Government structures need to preserve some independence from Government if they are to respect and protect university autonomy. The SFC must remain, and I quote, as a robust, arms-length body capable of providing challenge to both Government and higher education institutions. I would like to quickly address some of the contributions from across the chamber. Ross Thompson, Tavish Scott and Ian Gray spoke of the contradiction at the heart of this. You cannot have it both ways. Either you support academic independence or, following career, you go down the route of centralisation. Ross Gray spoke of the lack of evidence, quite rightly also pointing out that career is continuing centralisation. Daniel Johnson spoke about the extra bureaucratic layers that career proposes. Johann Lamont spoke powerfully how the Scottish Government has started from the end and worked backwards. Tom Arthur, thoughtful as ever, is interesting to hear his desire for consensus, pleading for differences to be resolved and rejection of dogma when I've sat through some pretty dogmatic and non-consensual speeches from him. Liam Kerr, with his well-deserved reputation for optimism, gave a characteristically optimistic speech. He spoke about the positive remit of SFC and an ambition that we all share that Scotland's education system should flourish. James Dornan and Jenny Gilruth were right in so far as that there is potentially a desire for partnership and streamlining, but it's a giant leap to go from that to an overarching board and either the neutering or the abolition of the independent boards that exist. I hope that the Government recognises as depth the feeling here, because yet again the SNP faces a choice. Either in the face of widespread opposition they persist with this wrong-headed plan to impose central government or they step back from the brink. I'd like to end by referring to events at the David Hew Institute last night and the First Minister's speech, because there is a very deep irony in what she said and the context of this debate. Let me warn the Government that you cannot accuse others of ignoring Scotland's voice when proposals such as those relating to SFC or HIE may potentially silence Scotland's local voices, be they the voices of our universities or our regional communities. You can't allege that others will strip powers from this Parliament when, at the very same time, you yourself might end up stripping powers from expert bodies such as the SFC and you cannot talk of a democratic deficit and go on to do something as profoundly undemocratic as centralising bodies such as those under ministerial control. Thank you. That concludes the debate and abolition of the Scottish Funding Council board. It's now time to move on next out to a business. I'll give a few moments for the front benches to change places.