I have said many times that, overall, that is a decision for ONS. Our responsibility, which my officials, ministerial colleagues and I have thoughtfully carried out throughout the process, is to ensure that we do not exert control over universities. Douglas Ross listens very carefully, so he will have heard the way in which I have dealt with the stage 2 proceedings and even the stage 3 proceedings today.

A vote for the bill is a vote for significant change. It is a vote for colleges, universities and training providers to work more cohesively to deliver high-quality, future-ready education and training. It is a vote to cut through bureaucracy, improve funding flows and maximise public value. It is a vote for a more efficient, aligned, responsive and collaborative system. It is a vote to take further steps to prevent gender-based violence and to advance fair work. It is a vote to widen access so that more people get the chance to study at college and higher education institutions.

Of course, the significant change that the bill makes is to expand the Scottish Funding Council’s role. It will be a fundamental redesign of the tertiary education and skills landscape. The SFC will be expected to evolve its structures, capabilities and culture, and it is ready for that. Throughout the bill process and in today’s debate, members have raised legitimate questions about the SFC’s capacity, culture and accountability. I assure the Parliament that I have engaged with the SFC to ensure that those points were probed. I am confident that the SFC will build strong and lasting partnerships with employers. Apprenticeships will continue to reflect the needs of business in the wider economy, and there will be significant input from and in collaboration with businesses. Apprenticeships will be made more accessible to young people who face barriers and those who retrain and upskill.

Given all that the SFC is taking on, some members have highlighted that the name “Scottish Funding Council” will no longer reflect the extent of what it does, which is an important point to consider, as Willie Rennie raised today. Changing the name in law could have required hundreds of technical amendments to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005, which would not have been a good use of parliamentary time. However, it is important that we consider a name that reflects what the SFC is known for and what it operates in practice in the future, so that its descriptor fully represents all that it will do. I am open to ideas from members, the business community and people more widely about what that name might be.

The bill was introduced to the Parliament almost a year ago, but the work did not start then. We are building on strong foundations and on a commitment that began when the Government decided in 2008, due to the financial crisis at the time, to ensure that no young person is denied the opportunity to fulfil their potential in education or in life due to economic disruption. I thank all those who have been involved since that juncture, including those at SDS. As we move forward, we do so on strong ground thanks to them.

The work of James Withers on the excellent skills review and report was what set us on this path. He made clear what many people recognised: that improvement to Scotland’s skills landscape was necessary and overdue, which is why we could not delay. He said that

“there is much that is good in the current system ... it has served Scotland’s needs well”,

but that we now need

“to create a system that”

allows users

“to meet ... the opportunities and challenges ahead ... and to meet the scale of the transformation that is facing us”.

He said that doing so

“may be the most important element of national infrastructure investment that Ministers could make over the next decade.”

Let us rise to that call together. Let us do what is necessary for now and get ready for what is ahead.