Seòmar agus comataidhean

My amendments 1 and 2 insert references to post-16 education bodies into sections 3 and 4 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005, as amended by the bill. Those are the general duties on the Scottish ministers and the Scottish Funding Council, and the amendments align with the language previously used in the provisions and throughout the 2005 act. The amendments respond to concerns raised by the Educational Institute of Scotland about creeping privatisation of tertiary education, which is absolutely not the policy intention nor the effect of the drafting of the bill. I have listened to the EIS’s concerns, and I am happy to provide the amendments by way of reassurance that there is no shift in that direction. I hope that members can support the amendments.

I am pleased to support amendment 25, in the name of Willie Rennie. The requirement for provision to address current and future economic need is fundamental to the planning and provision of tertiary education and funding, and I expect that that would be true of all Scottish Government Administrations.

With regard to the other amendments in the group, I will wait to hear the debate and members’ comments, and provide my views in my closing remarks.

I move amendment 1.

That relates to the point that the convener raised at the beginning of the meeting, and I am happy to undertake to write to the committee in the weeks ahead on the SFC’s accountability to ministers and the accountability that it applies to others under the 2005 act, which also relates to the points that we are considering today. There is certainly an emphasis that has been applied throughout the bill process and the stage 2 process, as well as through the engagement that ministers and others have had with the SFC about the SFC playing a proactive role in fair work. I am sure that the SFC has heard that throughout today’s process and will take the points on board in good faith.

I will sum up, convener. I cannot support Daniel Johnson’s amendment 73 and I encourage members to vote against it on the basis that the provision is outwith the legislative competence of the Parliament. The same applies to Ross Greer’s amendment 75, although I note that he has said that he will not move it. I ask Miles Briggs not to move amendment 74 but, again, I offer to consider it ahead of stage 3. Should he decide to press amendment 74, I encourage members to vote against it.

Pam Duncan-Glancy raises an important point that relates to some discussions that we have had this morning. There is a difference between a body applying grant funding conditions and setting conditions in law, which is employment law and firmly reserved to the UK Parliament. That is the difference.

As has been discussed, the amendments in this groups all relate to the definition of Scottish apprenticeships. Before I get to the detail of the amendments, I would like to make a couple of general points for wider context, which I think will be helpful.

In developing the bill, the Government engaged in detailed discussions on the definition of apprenticeships with the SFC, SDS and the SAAB short-life working group. At this point, I record my thanks to SAAB for its detailed, constructive and helpful engagement.

To allow for the future evolution of Scottish apprenticeships, the discussions cautioned against using particular terms in the bill, such as “modern”, “foundation” and “graduate” apprenticeships.

The bill will give ministers the power to amend the definition of Scottish apprenticeships by affirmative regulation. That means, of course, that any change will be subject to extensive consultation and that the Parliament will scrutinise any proposed changes. We need to monitor the effect of the definition following implementation to ensure that it works for everyone.

There are a few amendments in the group and I will address them thematically. My amendment 5 introduces a requirement for Scottish ministers to consult various stakeholders and groups before making regulations that amend the definition of Scottish apprenticeships. From my engagement with employers and business groups, I know that they are keen to be closely involved in any developments in that area, and rightly so. Amendment 5 makes provision for a statutory duty to consult those who play a key role in delivering apprenticeships, such as employers and training providers.

I note Pam Duncan-Glancy’s points about amendment 5—it is amendment 5, not amendment 6—

The amendment, which inserts new subsection 12E(2A)(e) into the 2005 act, talks about

“such other persons as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate”,

which covers the groups that Pam Duncan-Glancy mentioned.

I appreciated listening to fellow MSPs’ feedback on their amendments and proposals. Amendments 40 and 42, in the name of Miles Briggs, would seek to remove apprenticeships and work-based learning from the SFC’s duty to secure coherent provision and the minister’s duty to provide appropriate support for them. Amendment 40 would not stop the SFC from getting the new functions in the bill, but it would remove obligations to do so coherently. Amendments 40 and 42 would also fundamentally undermine our policy ambition for parity of esteem and cohesion across the tertiary education and training sector. Therefore, I cannot support amendments 40 and 42.

Amendment 24, in the name of Willie Rennie, would in effect reinstate SAAB. I have appreciated my engagement with SAAB in my role so far. We had a very helpful meeting between stages 1 and 2. I value the expertise of SAAB, and the board of the council will continue to play an important role in preparing for the transition of the responsibilities to the SFC along with the board of SAAB. That collaboration and engagement is appreciated. However, the provisions in amendment 24 duplicate the intended functions of the apprenticeship committee that the bill would establish, as Ross Greer said.

The proposals in amendment 24 would add clutter to the landscape and incur additional costs at a time when we are trying to achieve the opposite. In the Government’s view, the apprenticeship committee is the successor to SAAB and it can have such sub-committees as the SFC considers appropriate. There could be additional sub-committees for further input.

I therefore hope that Willie Rennie will not press amendment 24.

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.