Seòmar agus comataidhean

If it has, I have not seen it.

One of my greatest concerns has involved the victims and families who have been emailing us throughout the situation. I read Taylor’s mum’s letter last night and again this morning, saying that they feel that

“there has been a cover-up and closing of ranks.”

The UK Government has dragged its feet on an inquiry, although it has now announced one. It feels like the Scottish Government has been in the same space of not stepping up and holding a public inquiry. What do you, personally, think that your handling of the situation has done to provide victims with reassurance and confidence that the Government is going to get to the bottom of the matter?

Given the concerns that have been raised over the destruction and loss of vital evidence, the longer the situation goes on and the longer the Government does not put in place a grooming inquiry, things can only get worse, and evidence can only be getting destroyed. We have heard telling evidence this morning from Professor Jay over the burning of evidence—literally—taking place.

Has that gone to all public bodies ahead of any decision over an inquiry?

Yes.

Good morning, Professor Jay—thank you for joining us. Has the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs at any point offered you an apology for how your position was misrepresented in the Parliament?

So was this a one-off?

Give the minister’s commitment to further conversation at stage 3, I will not move it.

Amendment 180 not moved.

Section 15 agreed to.

Section 16—Co-opted members of the Council

Amendment 36 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

Section 17—Apprenticeship committee

My amendments and those of Stephen Kerr go to the heart of the Scottish Conservatives’ concern that the bill does not reflect adequately enough the voice of industry and business. My amendments 182, 184, 187, 188 and 189 would provide for a voice for business to be placed at the centre of the development partnerships and draw on the wealth of talent and business voices who want to be involved in our apprenticeship systems and on that committee.

Amendment 184 would add a requirement for the apprenticeship committee to include members who represent the interests of businesses in relevant industries, along with other individuals whom the Scottish Funding Council considers appropriate. That would ensure that the committee would have an industry-focused representative and representation, while giving the council flexibility to include additional expertise.

Amendments 187, 188 and 189 would ensure that employer perspectives were considered in shaping the apprenticeship committee’s membership alongside ensuring that the Scottish Funding Council directly considers including people who represent the interests of businesses and relevant industries, as well as delivering geographically balanced employer representation. That was not discussed at any length during the committee’s work on the bill, but it would ensure that the apprenticeship committee was not dominated by particular parts of the country.

Stephen Kerr’s amendments 190, 192 and 194 go to the core of whether the bill will create a credible, accountable and employer-led apprenticeship system, or whether it will simply replace one layer of bureaucracy with another.

We should view this group of amendments as one of the most important, because they concern the institutional architecture that will determine whether Scotland’s apprenticeship system succeeds or fails in meeting the needs of learners, employers and the wider Scottish economy. The bill proposes the creation of committees and boards that will advise the council on apprenticeships and skills, but, as it is drafted, the bill leaves critical questions unanswered. It does not guarantee that the people who understand apprenticeships best—the employers, practitioners and industry representatives—will have meaningful influence over decision-making, nor does it ensure that their advice carries weight, visibility and accountability. Too much is left to the discretion of ministers and the Funding Council, and too little is embedded in statute. My colleague Stephen Kerr’s amendments are designed to correct that weakness and to ensure that the governance structures have the strength, legitimacy and transparency that a modern skills system requires.

Amendment 190 would require that the committees and boards established under the bill be composed in a way that reflects the real economy. That is fundamental; if a body is charged with advising on apprenticeships, it must not be dominated by bureaucratic or academic voices at the expense of the employers who create the apprenticeships. For many years, Scotland has benefited from the Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board, which we all acknowledge and agree on. It brought direct employer insight into the system, and the model should not be weakened. Amendment 190 would ensure that committees are not tokenistic but generally representative of industries that depend on the apprenticeship system for their future workforce.

Amendment 192 would introduce a critical element to the apprenticeship committee: transparency. Under the bill, committees and boards may operate entirely out of sight, with no obligation for their advice to be published, shared or even explained. That is not good governance, and it is not good enough for a system as important as our apprenticeship system. Therefore, amendment 192 would require that the advice that is provided by those committees be transparent and that the Funding Council should set out how it will respond to the advice. That is essential for accountability. If the Funding Council chose not to follow the advice of committees, it should explain why it has not done that; if it accepts the advice, learners, employers and providers should be able to see the rationale behind the decision making.

Amendment 194 would build on that by ensuring that the committees and boards had a clear statutory purpose and defined responsibilities, rather than vague consultative roles. Like others, we have repeatedly made the point that advisory structures are effective only when they are empowered. Without a statutory mandate, committees risk being sidelined or used selectively—consulted when convenient and ignored when not.

Amendment 194 would ensure that the advice of those committees be sought, considered and responded to. It would move the system from a discretionary model to a principled one, in which employer and industry insight was not an optional extra, but a structural requirement. Taken together, the amendments would do something vital: they would stop Scotland’s apprenticeship governance being dragged back into a centralised bureaucratic model and, instead, would embed the principle that apprenticeship policy must be shaped by those who understand apprenticeships best.

The amendments are the difference between a system that listens and a system that merely hears; between employer-led governance and institution-led governance; and between a skills system that responds to the economy and one that expects the economy to respond to it. If the Scottish Government is serious about improving productivity, reducing skills shortages and expanding high-quality apprenticeships, the bill must empower employers, industry and practitioners—not sideline them. Amendments 190, 192 and 194 would do exactly that. For those reasons, I invite colleagues to support the amendments in the name of my colleague Stephen Kerr.

Amendment 203 is a probing amendment, as the minister has touched on. Concerns have been expressed by organisations such as the EIS on the impact of the modification of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which he will be aware of, which would allow private providers to be designated for the purpose of paying student allowances and loans. The clarification that the minister has provided is helpful. I do not intend to move amendment 203, given the assurances that he has given the committee.

The amendments in this group and the next are consequential. Amendments 145 and 150 seek to set out new duties for the Scottish Funding Council, requiring it to ensure that strategy and funding across the tertiary education system are aligned through collaboration with local authorities, training providers, employers and further and higher education bodies. The amendments would embed a statutory expectation of joint planning and co-delivery by all key partners when the council exercises its functions. As a result, amendment 150 would insert local authorities as a new first grouping within the schedule.

Am I to speak to the second grouping, as set out in amendments 151 to 171, convener?