Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill

The Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s consultation on the Stage 1 of the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill.

RSE policy advice paper, Tertiary Education and Training (Scotland) Bill 2025 (239KB, PDF)

Executive summary

• The RSE contends that the bill offers some potentially beneficial change in the tertiary education system which is aligned with the principles we have advocated for, such as working towards increased parity of esteem amongst providers.
• However, further details are needed on key aspects of the bill in order to assess the impact it might have. There are challenges related to the expansion of skills and responsibilities for the SFC, and little is known at this stage of how internal realignment will be pursued to facilitate the delivery of these enhanced responsibilities.
• The proposal to develop new apprenticeship schemes is welcome and could potentially expand the pool of learners. A streamlined funding process could simplify access to funding for stakeholders interacting in some cases with tens of different providers. However, the projected changes should be accompanied by a more strategic and comprehensive plan for the bill’s implementation, including providing further clarity on how the proposed funding distribution is intended to operate.
• There is a need to further clarify how the proposed realignment is intended to work to ensure that current opportunities will continue to be available for different types of learners, that the new processes are not cumbersome for providers or centralised to a degree that might cause detriment to the complex Scottish educational system.
• The RSE encourages the committee to consider how, in the context of the bill, time-specified incremental change based on key stages within the full programme of change, rather than fullscale immediate reorganisation, could be sought to support the increased coherence of the tertiary system.

Oral evidence

Question 1. The proposals would move the funding and functions related to National Training Programmes and provision for apprenticeships from Skills Development Scotland to the Scottish Funding Council. What do you think of these measures?

1. The Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s consultation on the Stage 1 of the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill.

2. The proposal to consolidate and enhance the governance of training and apprenticeship funding by moving the responsibilities from Skills Development Scotland (SDS) to the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) could support a more coherent and efficient delivery of post school education and skills training in Scotland. As noted in response to the post-school education and skills reform legislation consultation, however, the RSE expresses its concerns for the negative implications the proposed realignment and consolidation of functions across organisations could have at a time of significant financial pressure on public services (including a significant use of resources and potential for disruption to organisations). The RSE recommends that approaches and processes are unified in the first instance to increase coherence and efficiency before major organisational changes are pursued. We also reiterate the recommendation that the final version of the bill and associated documents will need to provide a clear vision of how the proposed changes will address the most pressing concerns of the education reform and what internal reforms will be pursued to ensure these changes do not overstretch the existing capabilities and expertise of the affected organisations.[1]

3. The proposal to develop new apprenticeship schemes is welcome and could potentially expand the pool of learners. A streamlined funding process could simplify access to funding for stakeholders interacting in some cases with tens of different providers, including trade bodies (e.g. Construction Industry Training Board) or employers. However, the projected changes should be accompanied by a more strategic and comprehensive plan for the bill’s implementation, including providing further clarity on how the proposed funding distribution is intended to operate. The proposed redesign should not lose track of the views and needs of other skills providers, alongside those of universities and colleges, and the new funding structures should ensure that the varied portfolio of funding for different pathways is retained.

4. Given the extent of the changes proposed in the bill, it will be important to clarify how the SFC will deliver certain functions of SDS including skills planning, and how interactions with industry will be facilitated for both skills provision and skills planning to ensure robust industrial policy development. Similarly, it would be helpful to clarify whether it is appropriate for the SFC to also engage with local authorities and secondary schools offering Foundation Apprenticeships (FAs) at Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) Levels 4-6 of their senior phase curriculum.

5. Equally, the RSE recommends that further details are provided on operational aspects related to the transition of responsibilities from SDS to SFC and the added benefits of consolidation into one body rather than alignment of processes and procedures. The bill proposes a significant expansion of responsibilities for the SFC but does not clarify the nature of the engagement that currently is undertaken by SDS. Careful planning will be essential to ensure the success of the merger.

Question 2. The bill would also move the funding and functions related to college student support from SFC to SAAS so that all student support funding is delivered through SAAS. What do you think of these measures?

6. The documentation associated with the bill appears to be silent on whether there is an intention to review or align funding mechanisms for the different learning pathways. Routing all student support through SAAS could potentially provide some efficiencies in the governance of the funding system. To ensure that students do not lose out, funding processes will need to be assessed to ensure that all types of support currently provided by SFC for students continue to be available through SAAS, and that the organisation becomes more agile and responsive to evolving student needs. Moreover, student support should not be predicated on a single model of full-time attendance but rather consider the different student needs and patterns of learning, including studying at different ages (colleges for instance often provide a lifeline for people who have been out of work or education), as well as those who combine studies with work or care responsibilities.

7. The RSE also recommends that the committee considers a recommendation to introduce a measure that is not currently captured in the proposed bill: to move the responsibility for the tuition fee paid to Scottish Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) from SAAS to the SFC. This would bring all elements of funding under one umbrella and offer opportunities for a more integrated approach, as well as the possibility of greater administrative efficiency.

8. The RSE has previously emphasised at different junctures the need to value diverse outcomes, as well as to ensure parity of esteem for different types of providers and pathways[2]. This was echoed in some of the reviews of the education sector commissioned by Scottish Government in the last years, as the Purpose and Principles for Post-School Education, Research and Skills report advocated for ‘equity of access and opportunity’[3] at different stages in life, while Professor Withers’ review[4] asked for further clarity on the distribution of funding for different qualifications and pathways based on parity of esteem principles. Further clarification would thus be needed on the proposed distribution of funding for different types of learning providers, including what funding will be available for skills development and lifelong learning. Moreover, it would be useful to outline the full scope of student/learner support that would fall under the responsibility of SAAS and whether support for all tertiary education pathways would be included in their remit.

Question 3. The bill will provide SFC with powers to make recommendations, issue guidance and to monitor the financial sustainability of post-16 education bodies. What do you think of these measures?

9. The bill in its current form proposes a significant expansion of responsibilities for the SFC, and some of these could prove challenging for the tertiary sector further down the line. In particular, the RSE expresses concern with the proposal that the SFC could issue recommendations and guidance, based on “efficiency studies”. We would recommend further consideration is given to what the expected outcomes are for such interventions and whether these could have broader, and perhaps undesired, implications for institutions, for example in determining the provision of programmes. In the RSE contribution to the consultation period for the proposed bill we noted that a careful assessment would need to be made whether the SFC’s current and intended revised operation is supported by an adequate distribution of skills and experience to support new responsibilities. This is especially important to consider if the SFC is expected to provide robust recommendations for the fundable bodies that go beyond measures related to ensuring financial viability.

10. Further consideration could be given to how the differential funding mechanisms are operating for colleges and universities at the moment and whether these should be aligned to support the Bill’s aim to work towards a more sustainable, coherent and efficient funding system across the board.

Question 4. The bill makes changes to the governance of the SFC, to take account of its expanded functions, and to ensure that the SFC has the skills and experience that it needs. Are the measures sufficient?

11. As noted above, large scale institutional changes are proposed, and a careful analysis of the distribution and balance of skills available across the organisation, and indeed the governance mechanism, is needed to ensure the successful delivery of an increasing variety and number of responsibilities for the SFC.

12. Careful examination is also needed to how the move of functions from SDS to the SFC will be undertaken, including any resources (re)distribution and financial implications in a time of contracting and pressured public sector budgets. While structural changes need to be adequately resourced, this should not come at the expense of existing core budgets for the different types of education providers. Large structural changes are likely to generate some attrition, opportunity costs, and lead to uncertainty in the tertiary and the wider training sector during the transitional period. It is essential that measures are put in place to mitigate and minimise negative consequences.

13. In relation to the proposed changes to the appointments of members to the SFC, the RSE recommends that the process should be aligned with the general rules for public sector boards which stipulate that ‘no member’s total period of appointment in the same position may exceed eight years’[5]. Imposing appropriate limits on appointment length is essential to ensure that the SFC’s composition reflects ongoing changes in the sector and that the skills available are refreshed periodically. Provisions should be made to unambiguously outline the profile of eligible prospective members and the potential conflicts of interest that may arise. Individuals who hold active positions as principals, vice-chancellors or other leaders that could have a distinct conflict of interest in fundable bodies as defined under the bill should not be taken into consideration for membership.

14. The proposed stage 1 version of the bill includes specific limitations for co-opted members which could hinder the operation of the SFC in the future. Under these provisions, there can be only two co-opted members at one time and there is a maximum time limit of one year for appointment. The RSE recommends that this requirement is reconsidered to ensure there is more flexibility in the appointment process so that the SFC can strengthen its membership by appointing co-opted members with specific skillsets as needed to ensure the smooth implementation of longer-term projects should this be the case. This will ensure that the SFC can implement its long-term strategy based on a continuous thought process, without losing skills and knowledge along the way due to these limitations.

Question 5. The bill aims to clarify the process for providing student support to Scottish students studying at private institutions in the UK. Do the measures provide enough clarity? Are the measures sufficient?

15. This is a segment of the bill that would particularly benefit from further clarification on how the proposed realignment is intended to work to ensure that current opportunities will continue to be available for different types of learners, that the new processes are not cumbersome for providers or centralised to a degree that might cause detriment to the complex Scottish educational system.

16. The RSE would especially welcome further clarification on what the definition of a private provider is in the context of the bill. Universities, which are currently listed in the fundable bodies section, are in essence private providers also (as they are not public bodies), as are many training providers and other bodies. Clarifying the nature of what the bill describes as private providers would be important. Further details would also be useful on the management of providers, what existing providers will need to do to continue to operate, how new providers can be added to the registry and if governmental approval would be needed in each instance irrespective of scale of operations.

17. Revising the approval system with a recognition of the increased nature of provision could bring efficiencies but measures need to be put in place to ensure practicality and agility. It would also be important to clarify the quality assurance mechanism that would be in place for private institutions, noting that the Quality Assurance Agency and other appropriate ‘regulators’ may be relevant.

18. The bill outlines that student support could be available for bodies that are ‘maintained or assisted by recurrent grants out of public funds’ but there is little detail on how this is defined or indeed the criteria that would be applied. The extension of student support to college students or those on alternate pathways in equal measure to that currently in place for university students could enhance opportunities for learners. It would also align with the views that the RSE has advocated for in the last few years, highlighting the importance of all education pathways, rather than favouring some preferred options. Should the proposed changes take into account a learner’s location, consideration should be given to the flow of funds outside of Scotland and the impact this might have on the education budget at national level.

Question 6. In your view, what should the outcomes of the bill be?

19. The RSE contends that the bill offers some potentially beneficial change in the tertiary education system which is aligned with the principles we have advocated for, such as working towards increased parity of esteem amongst providers.

20. In addition, the bill offers the potential to address the ambition in the Withers report that every individual (studying Foundation Apprenticeships in the senior phase of secondary school) has the opportunity to progress through their learning towards the world of work.

21. However, there remains a need to clarify certain key points before being able to assess the impact it might have. There are challenges related to the expansion of skills and responsibilities for the SFC, and little is known at this stage of how internal realignment will be pursued to facilitate the delivery of these enhanced responsibilities as opposed to aligning processes and procedures. Likewise, consideration needs to be given to the financial and opportunity costs of institutional reorganisation and the impact on the sector in the transitional period, particularly in the current economic climate. The RSE would strongly recommend that key metrics are defined prior to any change, which would be monitored to measure the success or increased efficiency of the tertiary system operations. Additional measures related to improved stakeholder experience can only be assessed over time.

22. The RSE would like to reiterate our response to the preliminary consultation phase, that implementing smaller, incremental changes such as alignment of approaches and processes could facilitate a smoother and more manageable reform process.[6] We noted that major changes could potentially cause disruption and require considerable resources at a time of increased pressures for the deployment of a section of the public budget for education. We continue to express the view that smaller changes, focused on process alignment changes in the first instance, would be preferable to address the pitfalls of large-scale institutional change.

23. We thus encourage the committee to consider how, in the context of the bill, time-specified incremental change based on key stages within the full programme of change, rather than full-scale immediate reorganisation, could be sought to support the increased coherence of the tertiary system.

24. As mentioned in first part of this response, we reiterate our recommendation for the Government to build on the rich repository of reports and evaluations published in the last few years (some of which are mentioned in this response: e.g. the Withers or the Independent Review of Qualifications and Assessment reviews) to maximise learnings and inform a long-term vision for education[7] to underpin any further anticipated reform, and outline how the vision and any proposed changes can be articulated with the Government’s general strategic priorities.

Additional information

25. Any enquiries about this advice paper should be addressed to Dr Cristina Clopot, Policy Advice Officer (cclopot@theRSE.org.uk). Responses are published on the RSE website (rse.org.uk).

References

[1] Post-school Education and Skills Reform Legislation 2024 https://rse.org.uk/programme/advice-paper/post-school-education-and-skills-reform-legislation/

[2] See for instance Education and skills 2050: Future proofing Scotland https://rse.org.uk/programme/advice-paper/education-and-skills-2050-future-proofing-scotland/

[3] Purpose and Principles for Post-School Education, Research and Skills 2023 https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/strategy-plan/2023/06/post-school-education-research-skills-purpose-principles/documents/purpose-principles-post-school-education-research-skills/purpose-principles-post-school-education-research-skills/govscot%3Adocument/purpose-principles-post-school-education-research-skills.pdf

[4] Fit for the Future: developing a post-school learning system to fuel economic transformation 2023 https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/independent-report/2023/06/fit-future-developing-post-school-learning-system-fuel-economic-transformation/documents/fit-future-developing-post-school-learning-system-fuel-economic-transformation-skills-delivery-landscape-review-final-report/fit-future-developing-post-school-learning-system-fuel-economic-transformation-skills-delivery-landscape-review-final-report/govscot%3Adocument/fit-future-developing-post-school-learning-system-fuel-economic-transformation-skills-delivery-landscape-review-final-report.pdf

[5] ON BOARD – A Guide for members of statutory boards 2023 https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2023/01/board-guide-members-statutory-boards-2/documents/board-guide-members-statutory-boards/board-guide-members-statutory-boards/govscot%3Adocument/board-guide-members-statutory-boards.pdf

[6] Post-school Education and Skills Reform Legislation 2024 https://rse.org.uk/programme/advice-paper/post-school-education-and-skills-reform-legislation

[7] See also the RSE document on the future of education: Education and skills 2050: Future proofing Scotland https://rse.org.uk/programme/advice-paper/education-and-skills-2050-future-proofing-scotland

Download this advice paper

RSE policy advice paper, Tertiary Education and Training (Scotland) Bill 2025 (239KB, PDF)