Seòmar agus comataidhean

Would the minister take one brief further intervention?

I appreciate that, minister.

To clarify, is the Government’s objection to amendment 69 a matter of drafting, or does the Government object to the policy objective in relation to recognition of unions?

I will not press amendment 69, on the basis of what the minister has said. I am happy to try to work with him ahead of stage 3. However, with respect, I suggest that it would be helpful for the Government to come to such proceedings and be absolutely clear on where it agrees or disagrees with the policy objective of amendments. I accept that members lodge amendments with deficient drafting, given the limited resources that are available. The legislation team do fantastic work, but they are doing a monumental amount of work on our behalf.

It often feels as if the Government uses issues of drafting as an excuse to obscure the fact that it disagrees with the policy objective of particular amendments and simply does not want to put that on the record. It would be much more helpful for proceedings if the Government was totally straightforward and said whether it agrees with the objective of an amendment. If it agrees with the objective but the wording is deficient, it is clear that we can decide to not move it at stage 2 and work to produce something for stage 3.

I will move amendment 71. I am grateful for the minister’s support for it, and I hope that the committee agrees to it. I expect that Miles Briggs’s amendment 72 will be agreed to, which will make my amendment 75 unnecessary.

I will finish on this group by picking up on the debate between the minister and Pam Duncan-Glancy on the point that putting particular conditions into legislation, in the Government’s view, takes us beyond the Government’s competence. It sounds as though the Government’s position is that it is possible to achieve many of the objectives through policy decisions that are outwith legislation, by simply setting conditions of grants rather than putting those into legislation. The issues of competence would come to the fore if those objectives were put into primary legislation.

That would be a perfectly respectable position if the Government was putting those conditions in grant funding using its policy discretion. My frustration is that almost all, if not all, of the issues that we have been discussing today are not new. For example, before 2021, we had been told for around a decade that it was not possible for the Scottish Government to set conditions around procurement and grants in relation to the real living wage. In September and October of 2021, the minister’s party, together with mine, simply delivered that, and it turned out that it was possible.

I respect the Government’s position that it does not want to put those provisions into primary legislation because of the issues of competence and the risks that that might pose to the bill as a whole. However, the Government should make maximum use of its existing powers to set the conditions directly as a matter of Government policy rather than putting them into legislation. That would be a much more defensible position with which to push back against amendments, because amending bills is the only way in which other members of the Parliament have an opportunity to influence policy decisions. If the Government were simply following through on the agenda that it allegedly believes in in relation to fair work, we would not need to lodge amendments and test the legislative competence of the Parliament, because the Government would simply be getting on with setting those conditions in the first place.

I absolutely agree with that. It is essential, particularly if the Government does not want to be placed in the position of voting against policy objectives that it allegedly supports at stage 3. I am sure that Opposition members would be amenable and understanding and would simply not lodge such amendments if the Government had made a clear statement of its intent to deliver on the objectives through other means. We absolutely require a clear statement from the Government ahead of stage 3 proceedings covering many of the issues that have been raised today and that were raised during the stage 1 debate.

Amendment 69, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 70 not moved.

Amendment 71 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Amendment 4 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 72 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.

Amendments 73 to 75 not moved.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Section 4—Scottish apprenticeships

I think that my amendments in this group are my largest set of amendments to the bill. I will try to be as brief as possible, but it will probably take a couple of minutes to speak to them. I promised the convener that I will make that time up in later groups.

Amendment 51 sets out the condition of a cap—which I propose that we initially set at 10 per cent—on the share of funding that should be paid to managing agents in relation to apprenticeships. We heard from a trade body during the stage 1 evidence that, when it acts as an agent, it takes a 40 per cent cut—I think that “cut” was the phrase that was used—of the funding per apprenticeship. That is 40p in every pound that is not going to the apprentice or the college. I have heard elsewhere that, in some cases, the figure is more than half the funding, and it is potentially as high as 60 per cent.

In England, the percentage of funding that managing agents get is capped at 15 per cent. Amendment 51 would replicate the English cap in Scottish legislation. I propose that we start the cap at 10 per cent, but I am not wedded to that specific figure—it is more important to set the principle of having a cap.

I note that the minister’s amendment 12, which comes in a later group, covers similar ground. I do not have any amendments in that group, so I will touch on it briefly now, because it is essentially a direct alternative to my amendment 51. The minister’s amendment 12 will give the SFC responsibility to limit the managing agent’s share of the funding. However, there is no definition in that amendment of what a “reasonable” fee may be. The amendment will provide that the SFC must limit the fee to something that is “reasonable”, but it does not require the SFC or ministers to set out what they believe to be reasonable.

The Parliament has received some clear and, frankly, outrageous evidence on this issue, and there was a strong consensus on the need for action. Amendment 51 would achieve such action by setting an initial cap of 10 per cent and allowing ministers to adjust that cap in the future as they deem necessary. Critically, the amendment would shift the responsibility for establishing a cap on to ministers, with an appropriate role for the Parliament via the approval of regulations.

As I said, I am not wedded to the figure of 10 per cent. There is an argument about whether it should be 10 per cent or whether we should start at 15 per cent, as is currently the case in England. What is important is that the responsibility for setting the cap should sit with ministers and the Parliament.

I absolutely agree. The member was right to predict that I would talk up the advantages of free bus travel for people under the age of 22. We should look at expanding that further, and not necessarily on the basis of age. For example, there is a compelling case for expanding concessionary travel to those who are undertaking an apprenticeship, in recognition of the fact that, if—this is the Government’s position—we are not able to boost apprentices’ wages, there might be other targeted measures that we can take that are clearly within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government that would reduce some of the cost barriers that they face. Given how low the apprentice wage is, an apprenticeship can be a non-viable option for a number of people, especially those in rural areas, where transport costs, for example, are so much higher.

I and, I expect, other members would be keen to discuss such matters with the minister ahead of stage 3, which will be necessary if the Government is keen to avoid many of the amendments before us being brought back and discussed in the chamber at stage 3.

Amendment 86 is straightforward. It specifies that, before amending or revoking an apprenticeship framework, the council may consult with such persons as it considers appropriate and that it must publish the reasons for the amendment or revocation of a framework as soon as is reasonably practicable afterwards. As has been mentioned, it is similar to the minister’s amendments 6 and 7 and Willie Rennie’s amendment 29.

I would be happy not to move amendment 86 and to support the other amendments if the minister were amenable to revisiting the issue at stage 3. What is specifically missing from his proposal—and which is included in mine, and which I would welcome as an amendment at stage 3—is the requirement for the council to publish its reasons for changes or revocations. I do not think that that is a cumbersome requirement to put on the council; I think that, particularly when a framework is fully revoked, it is reasonable to expect the council simply to lay out its reasons for doing so. If the minister is amenable to working on that ahead of stage 3, I am happy not to press amendment 86.

Amendment 87 seeks to add in that, when ministers make further provisions in relation to the process that the council should follow when it is preparing, publishing, amending, revoking the frameworks and so on, they ensure that details on consultation carried out with apprentices and those who represent them are included. The amendment is somewhat similar to Willie Rennie’s amendment 29, which is about consultation with employers, in seeking to specify how that process should be carried out.

I was not clear from the minister’s opening remarks what the Government’s position is in relation to amendment 87, and I wonder whether he will clarify it, as well as the Government’s position on amendment 86 and potentially working up a stage 3 amendment on compelling the council to publish its reasons for any changes that it makes. I would be happy not to press amendment 87 if, as with amendment 86, we could work together towards stage 3 amendments, but I am not sure whether the minister was indicating that in relation to amendment 87.

Absolutely. I would be happy to take that on board. I would never claim that my drafting is perfect, so if there is a way that we can agree on different language to strengthen the amendment and make the point ahead of stage 3 that we are talking about a wage that allows people to live above the poverty line, on which there is broad consensus, I would be open to that.

I have already covered amendment 61D in response to Willie Rennie’s intervention. It is about college principals being folded into the public sector chief executive pay framework. The college sector is an outlier because colleges are the only public bodies in Scotland to which the framework does not currently apply. The only other example is Scottish Water, but that is not a public body; it is a Government-owned company. College principals are the only leaders of public sector organisations who are not currently covered by the chief executive pay framework, but I have never heard a convincing case as to why that is. The amendment would rectify that and bring college principals in line with the rest of the public sector on the issue of pay restraint.

Amendment 61E would give ministers the power to modify that whole section of conditions by adding, varying or removing conditions by regulation subject to the affirmative procedure.

Finally, amendment 62 would put in place a further funding condition to require fundable bodies to ensure that adequate funding is provided for student associations and unions. That is largely self-explanatory, but, just as we said earlier in relation to apprenticeships that it is important for industry to have an independent voice, it is important for students of those institutions to be able to have their own independent voice. That is the critical role that is played by student associations and student unions, but it is often the case in colleges that student associations can struggle to sustain themselves in a particular year and, if they fold, it is entirely down to the college management to decide whether to put in the effort to restart them. That places all the power in the hands of management and leaves not nearly enough in the hands of the students, so placing a requirement on management to ensure that they make every appropriate endeavour to maintain and sustain student associations and unions, in whatever form they take, is useful.

I will round off there.

I appreciate that point. I am not entirely convinced by the answer, but I accept that that is the Government’s position. I acknowledge it in so far as universities or private training providers are concerned. However, will the minister clarify the Government’s position in relation to the policy objectives for colleges? Colleges are public bodies. The Government is entirely within its rights to set conditions in relation to how public bodies, which are ultimately accountable to it and funded by it, operate. That is quite separate to matters of employment law. It is essentially about internal organisational policy of the Scottish public sector.

Can the minister tease out that distinction? I understand his point on universities and where that would stray into matters of employment law, but I do not understand how that could apply to colleges, which are public bodies. That is essentially about setting internal pay policy.

You will be glad to know that my speaking notes for this group are far shorter than they were for the last one.

Amendment 69 specifies that the terms and conditions that are applied to national training programmes may require—I emphasise the word “may”—that a programme is to be delivered by an institution that has

“recognised one or more trade unions”.

The amendment ensures that trade union recognition is incorporated into the terms and conditions for national training programmes.

The amendment provides some flexibility for NTP providers—thus, Scottish ministers “may specify”—so that organisations that deliver training programmes but are not technically institutions are not excluded. Additionally, I use the word “may” rather than “must” because providers might not have an active staff union and should not lose out because of that. The issue that I am getting at is that the amendment is intended to address situations in which staff are attempting to unionise but are not being recognised by their employer, rather than cases in which there is simply an absence of a union, in which case the organisation should not be precluded from providing training.

Similar to amendments in group 4, the Government’s own fair work guidance includes a section on effective worker voice and conditionality in relation to the granting of public funds. It states that

“All organisations with a workforce must be able to demonstrate ... that all workers employed within that organisation have access to effective voice channel(s) ... at both collective and individual levels”

before the organisation itself is able to access grants.

Unions are clearly the most effective manner through which workers can have their voice heard, so requiring union recognition wherever a union exists would deliver on the Government’s own stated objectives. To be clear, I am trying to prevent public money from being given to an organisation to provide training while it withholds recognition of existing union branches.

Amendment 71 specifies that ministers must publish terms and conditions that they impose on NTPs, along with any reasons for considering them appropriate to impose. If it is not appropriate to publish terms and conditions, ministers should issue a statement of their reasons why—for example, doing so might get into areas of commercial sensitivity.

Amendment 75 adds a power of clawback for the SFC in relation to national training programmes if there are violations of “agreed fair work principles”. Via regulation, ministers would then have to

“set out further details in relation to the repayment of funds”,

which would include notification requirements and a process for appeal.

As I said a couple of times during the stage 1 proceedings, I do not think that a financial clawback is the most effective form of sanction, but it is a tool that should be available to the SFC in all relevant circumstances, including in connection with private providers, and the existence of the power and a clear willingness to use it should act as a powerful deterrent. At the moment, it appears to be somewhat lopsided for the SFC to have a power of clawback in relation to colleges and universities but not in relation to private training providers.

As with my previous amendment, this one builds on the Government’s fair work first guidance and would ensure that anyone in receipt of public funding for the purposes of delivering national training programmes adheres to existing Government policy on fair work by creating that power of sanction. The fact that that power exists should, in and of itself, be a strong incentive to ensure that it is not actually used.

I note that Miles Briggs’s amendment 72 is in a similar space. I am obviously keen to see my amendment 75 pass, given the detail that it would require ministers to set out, but I am happy to see where the debate goes in respect of those amendments and I hope that there will be a broad consensus, regardless of which amendment we choose to proceed with.

I move amendment 69.