Seòmar agus comataidhean

I emphasise that I am happy to have further engagement, because the general principles of value for money, fair work practices and transparency are as important to the Government as they are to the member. I am just being cautious about committing to a similar amendment because of the employment law reservation. I must be very strong on that, because we cannot stray outwith the competence of this Parliament. I am happy to have further constructive dialogue, because I think that the member and I are in alignment on the importance of the general principles of value for money, fair work practices and transparency about the spending of public money, but we must be careful about the drafting of primary legislation.

I take the points that Pam Duncan-Glancy has made in her deliberations on the amendments, and we will continue to consider them. Our main aspiration is to ensure that we do not have a long list of all the different engagement that might or might not need to take place. New paragraph (e) allows other appropriate stakeholders to be involved in such considerations.

Performance is measured through the 2005 act and the stipulations that are set out in it.

Moving forward, there is merit in taking such an approach to the evaluation, but we would wish to consider the timescales that are involved. Therefore, I hope that, on behalf of Stephen Kerr, Miles Briggs will not move amendment 46, to allow me to consider more appropriate timescales for stage 3.

I will just sum up, convener, if that is okay.

I encourage members to support my amendments 1 and 2. I support Willie Rennie’s amendment 25 and encourage members to vote for it. I encourage members to vote against Miles Briggs’s amendments 40 and 42, should he move them—I have set out what engagement would be helpful to have on that ahead of stage 3.

Given our discussion and the undertaking that I gave, I hope that Willie Rennie will not move amendment 24. If he does, I encourage members to vote against it. The same applies to Stephen Kerr’s amendment 43. I also invite Miles Briggs not to move amendments 44 and 45, but should he do so, I encourage members to vote against them. Finally, I hope that Stephen Kerr’s amendment 46 is not moved, but, if it is, I encourage members to vote against it.

I am sorry—I should have said that we will engage with Miles Briggs on amendments 44 and 45, but I have made it very clear that we do not think that amendments 40 and 42 are of merit in any way.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 40 moved—[Miles Briggs].

It was not a specific or deliberate exclusion. The purpose of including in amendment 5 those who are listed in new paragraphs (a) to (d) is to emphasise the importance of what they would bring to the considerations. However, there was no intentional exclusion of the groups that Pam Duncan-Glancy has highlighted, or any others.

I take the points that have been made on the record and will consider them further, and I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for raising them. As I have emphasised throughout the consideration of the bill, the views of trade unions, apprentices and those who are being educated in our wider higher and further education programmes and courses are vital and significant.

I turn to Stephen Kerr’s amendments 79 and 80, which seek to add other parties, such as colleges and training providers, to the apprenticeship agreement. The provisions in the bill do not require a tripartite agreement, but they do not preclude one. I hope that that reassurance is helpful for members, including Miles Briggs, who spoke on behalf of Stephen Kerr. I ask him not to move amendment 80.

I am happy to support amendment 79. It is worth remembering that colleges can be training providers, so amendment 79 is sufficient. The amendment allows flexibility for future innovation where several training providers could be involved. I am grateful to Stephen Kerr for introducing that aspect to the bill and to Miles Briggs for speaking to it today on his behalf.

Amendment 26, in the name of Willie Rennie, and amendment 78, in the name of Miles Briggs, seek to require apprentices to be under a contract of employment. Although we expect that the vast majority of apprentices will be under a contract of employment, the bill, as introduced, includes a carefully framed definition that does not exclude any arrangements that would otherwise come with an apprenticeship. We want to allow for apprenticeships for office-holders and other persons who are appointed or sponsored rather than formally employed, such as clergypersons, as happens in England. There is a wealth of possible scenarios for which we do not want to limit future innovation. I emphasise that apprentices are given the full protections of an employee as set out in the Employment Rights Act 1996, so, with respect to colleagues, amendments 26 and 78 are unnecessary and could potentially be limiting. On that basis, the Government does not support those two amendments, and I would be grateful if amendment 26 was not pressed and amendment 78 was not moved. If they are pressed and moved, I would respectfully urge the committee to reject them.

Amendment 76, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, seeks to add foundation apprenticeships to the definition of Scottish apprenticeships. As I said earlier in relation to our engagement with SAAB, while we seek, in the bill, to create a definition of Scottish apprenticeships, there was a determination, noting what the SFC, SDS and the SAAB short-life working group fed back to us, not to specifically define “foundation”, “graduate” and “modern” apprenticeships.

As I emphasised in my answer to a supplementary question in yesterday’s topical question time, we believe and understand that it is important to have campuses in communities for reasons relating to accessibility and employment, and for people to have education on their doorstep in the community, which I also emphasised in my opening remarks. As you would expect, the SFC is engaged on these specific issues with the institutions that might be considering such measures.

It is not for me to interfere in particular areas. All I will say is that we are engaging collaboratively with the SFC on those points of consideration. We also take the position at a generic level that having campuses in communities is important in allowing young people and others to access education in their locality and for the employment that those institutions bring. We want all public assets to be fully utilised and to provide value for money, but that needs to be led by local choices and it must have regard to cross-campus collaboration.

The important thing to emphasise, as I have already touched on, is that we value the different campuses in communities and what they bring. We want to continue to support the college sector and what it offers. We need to make sure that there is cross-campus collaboration, but the campuses have a positive impact in the places that they are in. It is important that we emphasise that and that we appreciate their local impact on accessibility, employment and responding to local need. That is not something to think of as anything but a situation—[Interruption.] Sorry, I am a bit distracted by people coming into the room.

There is a necessity to think on a regional basis. In this role, I am looking forward to supporting regional initiatives and will seek to be responsive—in ways that I, and the Scottish Government, can be—to support skills development.

I listened to the earlier exchange between Mr Briggs and the SFC on clawback, and I know that there has been an interest in that issue throughout the pre-budget scrutiny. I note and will consider the points that Mr Greer has raised. I am not going to say any more on it just now, but I will state as a point of fact that there is a piece of primary legislation going through Parliament at the moment that is considering governance. I will leave it at that.

Because they are autonomous organisations, I will need to think carefully before I express any personal or Government view. I will need to take that point away and come back to the committee.