Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have heard before the misconception about apprenticeships not being a priority for the SFC, should the Parliament pass the bill and it be implemented. I want to underline again this Government’s commitment to providing apprenticeships. We are providing a record level of apprenticeships and are seeking to enhance that provision. As I mentioned earlier, the letter of guidance will set ministerial priorities, so it will be up to the Scottish ministers to stipulate the priorities of the Government. I urge colleagues to be cautious about insinuating that apprenticeships will not be a priority for the SFC, because there is no evidence of that. [Ben Macpherson has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]

Ben Macpherson has identified errors in his contributions and provided the following corrections.

At col 19, para 3—

Original text—

I have heard before the misconception about apprenticeships not being a priority for the SFC, should the Parliament pass the bill and it be implemented. I want to underline again this Government’s commitment to providing apprenticeships. We are providing a record level of apprenticeships and are seeking to enhance that provision. As I mentioned earlier, the letter of guidance will set ministerial priorities, so it will be up to the Scottish ministers to stipulate the priorities of the Government. I urge colleagues to be cautious about insinuating that apprenticeships will not be a priority for the SFC, because there is no evidence of that.

Corrected text—

I have heard before the misconception about apprenticeships not being a priority for the SFC, should the Parliament pass the bill and it be implemented. I want to underline again this Government’s commitment to providing apprenticeships. We are supporting over 38,000 modern apprentices in training. As I mentioned earlier, the letter of guidance will set ministerial priorities, so it will be up to the Scottish ministers to stipulate the priorities of the Government. I urge colleagues to be cautious about insinuating that apprenticeships will not be a priority for the SFC, because there is no evidence of that.

At col 20, para 6—

Original text—

As was rightly emphasised, the body will be a redesigned institution, which will incorporate many of the staff from SFC. We have discussed, particularly in the stage 1 debate in the chamber, the importance of their role and expertise, and how much their contribution is valued now and will be in the redesigned model.

Corrected text—

As was rightly emphasised, the body will be a redesigned institution, which will incorporate relevant staff from SDS. We have discussed, particularly in the stage 1 debate in the chamber, the importance of their role and expertise, and how much their contribution is valued now and will be in the redesigned model.

At col 96, para 1—

Original text—

It is possible that amendment 203 is motivated by a misunderstanding about the privatisation of tertiary education. Some stakeholders have misunderstood part 3 of the bill as allowing private providers to be funded in the same way as fundable bodies. That is not the case. Several students already undertake further and higher education courses that are run by education providers that are not post-16 bodies under the 2005 act, because those providers have historically offered a type of provision that was not commonly delivered by publicly funded colleges or universities—mainly in creative courses such as dance, musical theatre and drama. Therefore, there are good reasons why private providers exist in the sector, and the purpose of part 3 of the bill is to make the process for supporting students at those providers more transparent.

Corrected text—

It is possible that amendment 203 is motivated by a misunderstanding about the privatisation of tertiary education. Some stakeholders have misunderstood part 3 of the bill as allowing private providers to be funded in the same way as fundable bodies. That is not the case. Some students already undertake further and higher education courses that are run by education providers that are not post-16 bodies under the 2005 act, because those providers have historically offered a type of provision that was not commonly delivered by publicly funded colleges or universities—mainly in creative courses such as dance, musical theatre and drama. Therefore, there are good reasons why private providers exist in the sector, and the purpose of part 3 of the bill is to make the process for supporting students at those providers more transparent.

Will the member give way?

The language that Pam Duncan-Glancy used at the end of her comments is, again, unhelpful. I know that it is a good line for a press release, but the bill is about making serious institutional change, based on the recommendations of the Withers report, in order to improve our system and to meet the needs of the modern economy and of learners, and enhance opportunities by funding apprenticeships, colleges and universities through the same institution.

As was rightly emphasised, the body will be a redesigned institution, which will incorporate many of the staff from SFC. We have discussed, particularly in the stage 1 debate in the chamber, the importance of their role and expertise, and how much their contribution is valued now and will be in the redesigned model. [Ben Macpherson has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]

On the safe transfer of powers, the SFC will be ready for 1 April 2027. It is the new information technology system—[Interruption.]

I clarify that the SFC will be ready from 1 April 2027. The points that Pam Duncan-Glancy referenced with regard to 2029 relate to the new information technology system. I do not want to make any further comments on her amendments. I know that Pam Duncan-Glancy, like me, wants to make the skills system as good as possible. I look forward to hearing more on her amendments.

My amendments 19 to 22 all make minor technical amendments to the bill’s provision on the designation process for private providers of further and higher education.

The bill will enable regulations to be introduced that will set out in detail the process for applying to become a designated private provider, as well as, through the amendments, the process for the approval of particular courses of education offered by those providers. That will ensure effective oversight of the courses that are to attract public funding. I therefore cannot support Miles Briggs’s amendment 203, which seeks to remove from the bill the power to designate private providers, meaning that students and education providers would be unable to benefit from the transparency offered by the new process that will be set out in regulations.

It is possible that amendment 203 is motivated by a misunderstanding about the privatisation of tertiary education. Some stakeholders have misunderstood part 3 of the bill as allowing private providers to be funded in the same way as fundable bodies. That is not the case. Several students already undertake further and higher education courses that are run by education providers that are not post-16 bodies under the 2005 act, because those providers have historically offered a type of provision that was not commonly delivered by publicly funded colleges or universities—mainly in creative courses such as dance, musical theatre and drama. Therefore, there are good reasons why private providers exist in the sector, and the purpose of part 3 of the bill is to make the process for supporting students at those providers more transparent. [Ben Macpherson has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]

Although I support the intention behind amendments 204 and 205, both of them raise operational difficulties and risk placing a very high administrative burden on colleges, which we would want to avoid. I would like to consider further what can be done by amendment at stage 3 in relation to reporting more generally. I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for lodging the amendments and would be happy to hear more from her to help inform our thinking, but I invite her not to move them at this time. If she does, I ask members to vote against them. Likewise, I urge members to vote against Miles Briggs’s amendment 203 but to vote for my amendments 19 and 22.

I move amendment 19.

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].

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.