Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.