Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

My understanding is that it is about the cumulative effect and the risk of it creating difficulty for the Government and the independence of the institutions. I am clear that there would be a risk of reclassification if amendment 63 was passed but I take members’ points. I want to make some progress, but I am happy to have further engagement with the committee on the points that members have raised, because they relate to the amendments that I am still to speak to.

I turn to Ross Greer’s amendments 51, 54, 55 and 62. As he said, I prefer amendment 12 in group 8 to amendment 51. It addresses the same issues while leaving discretionary power to determine appropriate levels of payment to the SFC. For context, in England, the cap is in conditions of funding, not legislation, and it is flexible. I hope that is helpful context.

I am certainly happy, as always, to have more engagement with Ross Greer. On the points that have been made about SDS, it is not bound by law, but the SFC will be and will be answerable—that is the difference. As with several amendments in the group, we need to be cognisant of the employment law reservation. However, I am happy to have further engagement.

Briefly, yes.

As I said, I would be more than happy to have further engagement on that with Mr Greer and the committee. I again emphasise the employment law reservation, which we have to consider in thinking about contracting.

Convener, I, too, want to congratulate you, and the committee more widely, on your award.

I also want to thank all the members and stakeholders who engaged with me on the bill between stages 1 and 2. The substantial and constructive engagement that we have had has been, I think, to the benefit of all.

I will speak to all the amendments in this group together, noting that amendment 207, as Pam Duncan-Glancy has mentioned, is consequential. I appreciate why the member has lodged them. It is desirable to have a clear picture that all can understand and which allows everyone to see their roles and responsibilities and where the opportunities might sit with regard to having national direction of skills planning. That is what the bill and the wider reforms of the skills landscape that we are introducing seek to do.

The Scottish Government is committed to leading skills planning nationally while strengthening regional approaches. We have agreed a high-level model for planning that sets out intended roles for the Scottish Government, the Scottish Funding Council and Skills Development Scotland, consistent with the objectives of the proposed amendment.

I am happy to consider what we might be able to publish ahead of stage 3, but I also want to put on the record the Government’s commitment to transparency, collaboration and delivering a system that meets Scotland’s strategic skills needs. I am also happy to take on board many of the aims that are set out in Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments in our approach, not least on consultation. It is, of course, the norm for the Scottish Government to consult and engage with key stakeholders in the development of policy, and I do not intend to deviate from that in our approach.

However, it would be inappropriate to tie future Governments to a policy approach by making it statutory. There are also some issues with the drafting of the amendments. For example, elsewhere in the bill, provision is made for “work-based learning”, which includes but is not confined to foundation apprenticeships.

For all those reasons, I cannot support amendments 38, 39 or 207, and I ask Pam Duncan-Glancy not to press amendment 38 or move the others in the group and allow me, my officials and the Government more widely to consider what more information on our national skills planning approach I can provide to Parliament ahead of stage 3.

I would be grateful if Pam Duncan-Glancy could provide a bit more context for that question.

We have paid careful attention to trade unions throughout the process. As I said, amendment 69 is not competently drafted. We could consider the matters that it raises in relation to trade unions further ahead of stage 3 but, at the moment, I urge the committee not to back amendment 69—indeed, I urge Ross Greer not to move it.

I thank Miles Briggs for setting out the rationale behind his amendments. However, the intention and wording of amendment 70 are unclear. If he is suggesting that we should have a provision that effectively allows grant funding to be passed directly to employers rather than staying within the SFC’s direct oversight, I am sure that he can see how that might prove challenging if universally applied. That sort of national training programme might be a good idea in some circumstances, but I am unsure whether such a provision is necessary, and I do not consider the wording to give the intended effect. However, I am happy to consider the matter further ahead of stage 3, if the member is minded to do that.

I am pleased to support amendment 71, in the name of Ross Greer, and amendment 72, in the name of Miles Briggs. Amendment 71 will bring transparency to the terms and conditions that are set by the Scottish ministers when providing grant funding to the SFC. Amendment 72 implicitly emphasises the importance of compliance and results in return for public money by setting out how the SFC could impose repayment conditions.

Although I have no issue with the spirit of Daniel Johnson’s amendment 73, it is problematic on several fronts. The term “transparent on spend” is not defined, and we would not want a grant recipient to need to publish details of all their expenditure. That could be unnecessarily bureaucratic and sensitive in respect of certain matters such as staff salaries and subcontracting.

More importantly, by requiring the SFC to impose a condition that the person “adopts fair work practices” in all circumstances, regardless of the nature of the business, amendment 73 would have the effect of mandating employment terms and conditions. Unfortunately, that is strictly outwith the competence of the Parliament. As there is an employment law reservation, the amendment should not be supported.

Miles Briggs’s amendment 74 is in similar terms. Although the provision is not framed as an essential grant condition, the amendment is unnecessary, as the bill already gives the SFC a broad power to make grants subject to such terms and conditions as it considers appropriate to impose. It is for the SFC to decide what grant condition may or may not be appropriate, depending on the nature of the training programme and the grant recipient. I appreciate the desire for legislation to expressly allow for the SFC to impose a condition in this space, and I am happy to look at that further to ensure that we have a provision that is workable and within legislative competence. I commit to doing so at stage 3 and therefore ask Miles Briggs not to move amendment 74.

Likewise, Ross Greer’s amendment 75 would make a provision that would be more appropriately placed in the contract or offer of grant that is made to the person providing the national training programme. In addition, the purpose of the provision appears to be to penalise financially employers who do not adhere to fair work principles. That therefore relates to the reserved matter of employment rights and is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament I therefore ask Mr Greer not to move amendment 75 and, if he does, I urge members to vote against it.

I will be moving amendment 4 and will ask members to support it. I hope that members will also support amendments 71 and 72. As stated, I cannot support amendment 70 as it is currently drafted and I ask Miles Briggs not to move it, as that will allow me to consider the matter further ahead of stage 3. If he does move it, I encourage members to vote against it.