Seòmar agus comataidhean

—applies to Ross Greer’s amendment 86, and I will now take Pam Duncan-Glancy’s intervention.

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for raising those points again and reiterate for clarity and completeness that there was no intention on my part or the Government’s to deliberately exclude anyone. We wanted to create amendments that were tight and well drafted and which created the possibility for a wide range of stakeholders to be included.

As with the debate on the previous group of amendments, I note and appreciate the points that have been raised by Pam Duncan-Glancy and can consider them with her further. I think that the member will also share my concern that we do not want to have a very long list and that we must consider what drafting is appropriate. We will consider that issue further, including in relation to amendment 87.

Having dealt with that intervention, I will conclude my remarks by saying that I will listen carefully to the debate on all the other amendments in the group, and I will set out more of my views in my closing remarks.

I move amendment 6.

Like colleagues, I have quite a large contribution to make, so please bear with me. I am grateful to all members who have lodged amendments in this group and I understand and appreciate the rationale behind them all. Colleagues will appreciate that we have to be cognisant and considerate in order to ensure that we make good law, avoid unintended consequences—particularly with regard to ONS classification—and legislate within the competence of the Scotland Act 1998. Many of my remarks will be focused around those areas.

Pam Gosal’s amendment 3 would place a condition on the SFC to require the bodies that it funds to take action to address gender-based violence against staff and students. As I understand it, the amendment aligns with EmilyTest’s goal of ensuring a minimum standard of operation in higher and further education with regard to gender-based violence. The Scottish Government shares that goal, and I pay tribute to the campaign work of Fiona Drouet and EmilyTest, along with other groups that engage with higher and further education campuses, for what they have done on this issue. Pam Gosal will know that, before I rejoined the Government, I had quite significant engagement with them, including in my constituency capacity.

We want to continue to work collaboratively with stakeholders such as EmilyTest, Rape Crisis Scotland, Police Scotland, Universities Scotland and Colleges Scotland to develop an approach that supports colleges and universities to protect and support students. Good work is on-going across higher and further education to address gender-based violence issues on campuses, which the Government absolutely intends to build on. We understand that, collectively, there is more work to do.

However, I have technical concerns about the amendment as it is currently drafted. It requires funded bodies to engage with an evaluated framework, but there is currently only one such framework in place—EmilyTest—and engagement comes with financial and resource implications for institutions. The risk is that the amendment as currently drafted would not be effective if EmilyTest, for whatever reason, were to cease to exist, because there is no alternative framework and one would need to be identified and developed.

It is clear and right that all parties should work together towards the same goal on the issue. I want to give effect to the aspiration of Pam Gosal’s amendment in a way that is practical and deliverable, so that it becomes law and practice that institutions take on responsibility for addressing gender-based violence. I hope that Pam Gosal agrees not to move amendment 3, so that I might further consider how to introduce a reframed version of the amendment at stage 3.

Convener, I propose to speak to all the other amendments by grouping them by member and working through them methodically.

First, I turn to Miles Briggs’s amendments 50 and 63. As the architect of fair work first, the Government has clear expectations about its application in grant making, wherever and whenever it happens in government. However, I am not certain that we can prescribe its application in law to the SFC and the grants that it awards. I am, however, happy to look again at the issue to see whether we can come back with something workable at stage 3. I commit to doing so and I ask Miles Briggs not to press amendment 50.

Although I have great sympathy with the intent behind amendment 63 and hope that institutions are supporting students’ mental health and wellbeing in practice without being prescribed to do so, I cannot support the amendment. We need to respect the autonomy of higher education institutions and avoid attaching so many statutory conditions to their operation through funding that we risk them being reclassified as public bodies by the ONS. That would create huge issues for the Government and for our institutions, not least by compromising their independence, their ability to raise funds from other sources and their ability to act commercially when it is appropriate to do so.

I thank Ross Greer for emphasising that point. Regarding college principal pay, there are concerns about imposing pay policy via funding conditions, as that might not be appropriate in terms of union engagement and so on. I can take that away and give it further consideration, but we have to think carefully about the whole circumstances.

I thank members for the debate on the amendments in the group. It is important that we do all that we can together to ensure that appropriate and relevant stakeholders and delivery partners are involved in apprenticeships and engaged in the development and amendment of the frameworks. The amendments that have been proposed are important in that regard.

Therefore, I am very sympathetic to the spirit of Ross Greer’s amendment 87, which seeks to engage representatives of apprentices and prospective apprentices in the process, an issue Pam Duncan-Glancy raised with me in her intervention during my opening remarks. I ask Ross Greer not to move the amendment today, which he has kindly suggested as an option, and to let us consider together how we can improve the bill at stage 3 in that vein.

Although I understand the rationale behind Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 84, I cannot support it, because what we are now calling foundation apprenticeships are provided for through the work-based learning section in the bill as drafted. I am not proposing that that be subject to the framework requirements that apply to Scottish apprenticeships. The approach was arrived at in developing the bill’s provisions on Scottish apprenticeship and work-based learning and in the extensive engagement that was carried out prior to introduction with the SFC, SDS and the SAAB short-life working group on the definition of apprenticeship. Indeed, I referred to that context and engagement prior to introduction in our debate on the last group.

Stephen Kerr’s amendment 85 seeks to put colleges and local authorities ahead of private training providers when it comes to training apprentices to meet the requirements set out in the apprenticeship frameworks. I do not believe that that is necessarily appropriate, because I am keen to see the mixed economy of public and private provision continue. Furthermore, the relevant requirements of an apprenticeship are expected to be prepared not with a view to who would provide the training but with the required standards or qualifications to be achieved in mind.

The remaining amendments in the group set out other stakeholders that the SFC should consult or involve when preparing, publishing, amending and revoking frameworks. Amendment 88, in the name of Monica Lennon, covers trade and industry representatives; amendment 89, in the name of Stephen Kerr, covers employers and representatives of industry in the relevant occupational activity; and amendment 90, also in the name of Stephen Kerr, covers representatives of managing agents and training providers.

I can see and understand why members have lodged those amendments. Clearly, a wide range of people could be involved in the process. However, there is also a case to be made for avoiding long lists of potential consultees in the bill, not least because of the risk of someone important being overlooked. That was the thinking behind the drafting and the openness of the Government’s amendment.

Therefore, it would, in my view, be preferable to leave the matter to regulations, but I appreciate that there is an appetite to include more detail in the bill. I have heard that clearly from members around the table today, so I undertake to give the matter more thought ahead of stage 3. I am happy to engage with colleagues on those points.

If colleagues agree, I suggest that amendments 6 and 7, in my name, which refer to

“such other persons as the Council considers likely to be affected”

be agreed to, as that is an inclusive approach. Then, because I have undertaken to consider Ross Greer’s amendment 87, I will also consider amendments 88 to 90, and we can think collectively about how we get the balance right at stage 3.

I give an undertaking in good faith that I am pleased to engage on those points, on the amendments and on their themes ahead of stage 3, and I therefore ask members to vote for amendments 6 to 8, in my name.

Moving on to Willie Rennie’s amendment 29, I listened carefully to the points that he made in response to my opening remarks, and I want to engage further with him on those matters ahead of stage 3. I must emphasise the comments that were made during the debate on an earlier group: we must ensure that we have the necessary input and expertise from the business community and industry, and consider together whether there is a need for further independence. I am happy to engage further with Willie Rennie on the points raised in amendment 29, if he does not move it today. If he does, I encourage members to vote against it at this juncture.

I ask the same with regard to Ross Greer’s amendment 86. As I have stated, I would be grateful if Ross Greer did not move amendment 87, so that we can consider the issue together further, but if he does move it, I encourage members to vote against it. The same applies to Monica Lennon’s amendment 88 and Stephen Kerr’s amendments 89 and 90.

As I have said, I cannot support Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 84, nor Stephen Kerr’s amendment 85, and I encourage members to vote against both.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Amendment 84 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for providing that additional context. There is perhaps a bit of a misunderstanding. To be clear, amendment 4 intends to make the power to pay more flexible. It is not about people; it is about companies and their situation. I thank the member for seeking that clarity.

I will move on to the other amendments in group 5. Ross Greer’s amendment 69 refers to “an institution”. Unfortunately, it is not clear what that term means. The persons delivering national training programmes might not be institutions but could be any type of person. Therefore, attaching such a grant condition would be unhelpful in limiting who can provide training programmes solely to institutions.

I thank Miles Briggs for setting out the rationale behind his amendments. However, I think that—

Since my appointment, I have sought proactively to listen to the concerns and proposals in the college sector, whether is that through the sector body, Colleges Scotland, or the relevant unions, including the EIS, which I met with again yesterday, or through engagement with specific colleges, with which I have endeavoured to engage directly as much as possible within my capacity. I am very open to listening to and considering both concerns and ideas and proposals from the sector.

I am just about to pivot to the positives of why I think that there is quite a lot of alignment across the Parliament on the need to move forward, so I will continue speaking to the amendments, which may help to answer the member’s intervention.

Although it is important that Scottish ministers are engaged in changes to funding allocation models, it is my view that the changes must be shaped by the sector itself.

Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 48 is broadly similar to amendment 49 from Miles Briggs. Both are largely consistent with the work that the Government has been, and will continue, undertaking—as I have just described—which makes it clear that reviewing funding models does not require statutory underpinning. I thank both members for lodging their amendments but, in the Government’s view, to support both amendments would result in duplication.

I am therefore content to support Miles Briggs’s amendment 49. I appreciate all that he has brought forward on the credit system so far during my current tenure in my role; it has been very helpful for me to listen to his points and concerns in that regard. I believe—with respect to Pam Duncan-Glancy—that his amendment presents a more cogent proposal for a review. I therefore hope that Pam Duncan-Glancy might not press her amendment 48 and the committee can vote unanimously for amendment 49.