Seòmar agus comataidhean

I had hoped that I had reassured Mr Greer that I will come back at stage 3, but I am happy to take his intervention if that is helpful.

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.]

I am pleased to support Bill Kidd’s amendment 18, which responds to requests made by trade unions and SAAB. The council will be required to have regard to the desirability of appointing the types of persons set out in the amendment, should it be agreed to. It rightly identifies employers, colleges and universities, training providers and trade unions—

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for that intervention. She and other members will recall that amendment 73 in group 5 covered similar ground, and the issue was subject to some discussion and challenge from Pam Duncan-Glancy last week, as well as in her intervention just now. My reasons for resisting amendment 113 are similar to those for resisting amendment 73.

As I said last week, the general principles of value for money, fair work practices and transparency are of course important to the Government, as they are to members of the committee. However, it is likely that prescribing fair work practices in the way that is set out in those amendments, including amendment 113, would be beyond the legislative competence of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, due to the reservation in that regard.

Last week, I said that I would not give an undertaking to lodge a similar amendment at stage 3, but I undertook to be open-minded and to have further engagement with Pam Duncan-Glancy on the wider issues that were raised in amendment 73, and that applies in respect of amendment 113, too.

Officials and I have engaged significantly with the SFC during the bill process thus far and we will do so in the period ahead as the bill progresses. I will consider the points that Ross Greer has raised about amendment 144, but I stand by what I have said and will leave it at that.

Will the member take an intervention?

As I have articulated in today’s proceedings, I am happy to engage further with Pam Duncan-Glancy more widely ahead of stage 3, and we can certainly cover the issue that she highlights. I cannot give an undertaking right now that we will lodge an amendment in that space, but I would be very pleased to discuss the matter.

Committee members are right to focus on the matters that are set out in this group of amendments and on how important the transition will be, should it be the will of Parliament that the bill passes. I am as keen as colleagues are to keep costs under control, to keep staff engaged and make sure that they know that they are valued, to keep track of progress and to ensure that there is no disruption to current service provision. That has, rightly, been emphasised—including by Miles Briggs.

The question that we have is how best to do that. Ironically, creating lots of statutory obligations can have the opposite effect to the one that is intended, and can generate additional and unhelpful administrative demands and associated costs.

I am pleased to support amendment 197 in the name of Miles Briggs. It takes a sensible and pragmatic approach to updating the Scottish Parliament on the financial implications of any transfer of functions related to the bill. I will consider coming back at stage 3 with an amendment to finesse the wording, because the bill does not directly transfer any functions. However, I am happy to support amendment 197 at this stage and I thank Miles Briggs for lodging it.

I contend that the other important points raised by colleagues, including by Pam Duncan-Glancy, in relation to the amendments in group 10 are best handled administratively, so I cannot support any other amendment in the group. I would be happy to commit the Scottish Government to updating the committee regularly on the progress with implementation and the matters covered by the amendments. I hope that that commitment is sufficient to encourage members not to press their amendments—other than, as I emphasised, amendment 197.

One reason why it is better to handle those matters administratively is that we do not want to lock ourselves into an approach to consultation, engagement or reporting that later turns out not to be the best way forward. For example, Pam Duncan Glancy’s amendment 198 would make various provisions for engagement with trade unions; although I agree that that is paramount, it may not be the right thing for ministers to establish formal joint consultation groups. We have to be careful to give the public bodies their proper roles in supporting and delivering the changes. The SFC, not the Scottish Government, will be the employer of any staff transferred from SDS to the SFC, so there are matters on which it is proper for the SFC to engage with staff and unions, rather than for ministers to do so. It is my clear expectation that the SFC and SDS will have a process in place to do that—just as I have been clear with all the bodies involved in the transition of staff outwith the bill that they must engage meaningfully with their staff throughout the process.

The suggestion of post-legislative scrutiny would continue the engagement process, and I am very supportive of that in principle, but I have several issues with the framing of the amendment. First, it would not normally be for a public body to conduct a review; it would be for ministers to do so. Ministers may involve relevant bodies in reviewing legislation, where they have responsibilities and duties for implementation, and, in this case, the SFC would be relevant for that purpose. However, to cover all the aspects that Pam Duncan-Glancy is looking for would likely involve other public bodies, such as colleges. Secondly, the review period is too short. It is not only that an annual review would be overly burdensome but that having that kick in only a year after the bill came into force would mean that the first review—and maybe the first few reviews—would not have much material to go on.

However, I understand, appreciate and respect very much the appetite for post-legislative scrutiny. As with many of the amendments that we have discussed at stage 2, I cannot support amendment 206 as drafted, but I would like to consider what we can do to review that ahead of stage 3. Therefore, I ask Pam Duncan-Glancy not to press amendment 206. Should she do so, I ask members to vote against it.

I understand why Mr Kerr raises the point, and I share his determination to create greater parity of esteem and opportunities that are available to all. The fact is that, with regard to the evidence that was heard and the 2005 act itself, the widening access considerations are concerned with further and higher education. As for the accessibility of apprenticeships, I think that the member will agree with me that, in general, they are more widely available to different socioeconomic groups.

However, I take Mr Kerr’s point, and I would be pleased to consider it further and have more dialogue on it in the discussions that I have already undertaken to have.