Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 178 would add

“persons who have experience of the interests of persons undertaking a Scottish apprenticeship or work-based learning”

to the list of people who should be considered when appointing members. I admit that that language is tortuous, but it reflects the language that we landed on in relation to a similar provision in the Education (Scotland) Bill. The aim is to recognise that it is good to include people who can represent a particular group—in this case, those doing apprenticeships—while also recognising that someone who is on the council is not there to represent the interests of a particular group. As I said, I admit that that is tortuous language, but it is language that already exists in relevant legislation for very similar bodies.

The amendment would simply have the effect of ensuring that the voice of those who are undertaking an apprenticeship or work-based learning is heard directly on the board of the SFC. As with every other institution or organisation that operates in this sector, I would expect those who are at the receiving end of decisions that are being made by the SFC to be involved in making those decisions.

Similarly, amendment 179 would add persons who are representative of the interests of the council’s staff. That would solidify current practice and ensure that, because it is in legislation, it cannot be changed or drawn back on in the future. Again, that mirrors amendments that were made to the Education (Scotland) Bill earlier this year.

Will the member take an intervention?

Amendment 128 would encourage public bodies to be open and proactive in their publication of data. That has been a bit of a hobby horse of mine—John Mason will be familiar with that from Finance and Public Administration Committee meetings.

The David Hume Institute did some pretty thorough research on the issue a couple of years ago and found that there was around an astonishing £2 billion-worth of lost value to the Scottish economy each year because of the huge volume of public data that, in practice, is not available to the public, either because it is not being proactively published or because it is published only on copyrighted websites and is therefore often essentially unusable for a lot of the purposes that people would want to use it for. As things stand, the Scottish Funding Council, Skills Development Scotland and a number of colleges all have copyrighted websites. There is not a clear rationale for that, but that is the case. They restrict the use of even the most basic information that they have.

To its credit, the SFC has been engaging with my office on the issue, so it is now looking at adopting the same open government licence that the Scottish Government, some councils and other public bodies use, which is essentially an alternative to traditional copyright. As an example of what that means in practice, any information that is on the Scottish Government’s website, other than the Government’s own logo—its brand—is freely available for anyone else to use for any purpose. It is public information, so it is not copyrighted. Amendment 128 would require the council and any fundable body that receives payment from it to take steps to adopt a proactive approach to the publication of data that is appropriate for disclosure in the public domain. It defines “proactive approach” as

“the routine identification and publication of appropriate information without the need for specific requests.”

That means that the information should be accessible without the need to submit a freedom of information request.

The definition of what is appropriate to be in the public domain will vary. For example, universities will have far more commercially sensitive research information. Some information that is held by Scottish universities is also classified under national security legislation because it comes from joint research projects with UK Government departments. That is obviously not suitable for the public domain, and the amendment contains the flexibility to deal with that.

I honestly wish that we could just expect institutions to do what the amendment calls for, but, despite the efforts of the David Hume Institute, myself and others, uptake of even the open government licence, which I think is the lowest rung on the ladder, has been absolutely glacial.

In its report, the institute said:

“The vast majority of institutions make no provision for open data and some have stated vague plans. Universities and colleges play a crucial role in planning the future workforce, understanding population and migration trends and the development of research.”

More proactively published data from higher and further education institutions would have a valuable impact on businesses and on planning for the economy. Even at the most basic level, if we take the example of businesses that require the use of meeting rooms and conference facilities around the country, the fact that most councils, universities and colleges have copyrighted websites means that it is not even legal for any organisation to create a central database of all publicly available meeting rooms that can be booked, the capacity of those rooms, the rate and so on, because most of that information is held on copyrighted websites, despite that not being remotely necessary. It would be much more efficient for the institutions if they were proactively putting appropriate, publicly available data into the public domain and did not constantly have to respond to freedom of information requests.

Will the minister take an intervention?

Yes, the intention is absolutely for trade union representatives to be included. If we are talking about those who can represent the interests of a particular group—in this case, the staff of the organisation—it is trade union reps who are in a position to do that. Without rehearsing the debates that we had at stages 2 and 3 of the Education (Scotland) Bill around the language that we need to use, and the debates that we have already had around the need to avoid straying into reserved territory in relation to employment law, trade union law and so on, I can say that the intention of the amendments is absolutely to make sure that there is a place on the council for trade union representation.

As I mentioned, that is currently the case in relation to the representative of the staff of the SFC, and my intention is to ensure that we are solidifying that in legislation. It is true that the language that I have used does not say that specifically, but, for reasons that are already well rehearsed, that is certainly my intention. I cannot think of anybody else who would be able to represent those interests nearly as effectively as a trade union representative, and there is certainly no one who would have the equivalent democratic mandate from those workers.

I am grateful to the minister. On the basis of what he said, I will not move my amendments in this group, because I am keen to work with him at stage 3. However, I am struggling with what he said about the overall rationale because it does not seem to be compatible with the conclusions that we reached on the Education (Scotland) Bill and the comments that the cabinet secretary made just a few months ago. I appreciate his point about the need for balance. I was not going to support all the amendments in this group for that reason, but I did intend to support some of them. I am happy not to move my amendments and to work with the minister ahead of stage 3.

However, I want to ask the minister whether he or his officials have made any reference to or looked back at the considerations that were made at stages 2 and 3 of the Education (Scotland) Bill about who sat on the board of Qualifications Scotland and who sat on the advisory council of the inspectorate, because it is a similar argument for similar organisations within the same area of Government. The minister’s argument does not appear to be compatible with the position on those bodies that the cabinet secretary accepted just a few months ago.

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.

Will the minister take an intervention?