���˿���

Amendment 73 simply asserts that, if public money goes to a private or independent provider, we will require value for money, fair work standards and transparency on spend. Given that there are examples of the Government applying conditions on grant funding that include fair work, I am not sure that the amendment would lie outwith legislative competence, because it is about when the grant is given to the fundable body.

I recognise the work that the minister describes. Nonetheless, the principal of North East Scotland College told us that the direction from Government was not there, and that, with regard to strategic approach and priorities, colleges therefore “cracked on” and did it themselves. The college sector expressed concerns in evidence to the committee during our pre-budget scrutiny that the existing model, even with flexibilities, was not meeting what it considered to be demand, in relation to not only the scale of that demand but the needs of young people with additional support needs in colleges, and that it was not providing support for English for speakers of other languages. None of those things has been addressed. Would the minister accept that?

If I am honest, I remain sceptical about whether that is the case. I have seen ministers talk about the Government’s fair work principles in other areas and assert that they can guarantee those principles in certain sectors. What the minister says appears to contradict that, which causes me some concern.

Fundamentally, amendment 73 is trying to ensure that we have value for money, that the fair work standards are met when we give any public funding to fundable bodies and that those bodies are transparent on spending. If the minister were to intervene in response, I would be interested to know whether he agrees that value for money, the fair work standard and transparency on spending must all be guarded and whether he would be willing to work ahead of stage 3 to come up with an amendment that he considers to be within legislative competence.

I appreciate the minister’s clarification, but I am left feeling unclear about the Government’s position on whether it would be important to require those things as a matter of law. The Government is proposing the movement of public funds to organisations that we all, I think, hope and believe will provide value for money, support fair work principles and be transparent about how they use their funding. We have heard that public sector institutions, such as colleges, are keen that any requirements that are applied to them are also applied elsewhere.

I am a bit concerned that the Government will not be prepared to work on a stage 3 amendment that would be within legislative competence if it considers that amendment 73 is not within competence. That would leave us in a position where protections for that money are not in the legislation and I do not think that that is an acceptable circumstance for us to be left in.

Will the minister give way?

The member will know that his amendment 26 pre-empts one of mine, which will affect voting. How would amendment 26 impact on whether young people who undertake foundation apprenticeships should be considered to be employed?

I agree, and I think that the member is trying to do the right thing, in principle. However, I worry that “sufficient” and “adequate” are subjective terms, so I wonder whether something could be done ahead of stage 3 to make the proposal a bit clearer so that we can achieve the aim without the subjectivity that is indicated in amendment 61C.

I wanted to intervene to apologise for getting the amendment number wrong. The minister is of course correct—it is amendment 5, and not amendment 6, which is in the next group. I think that I have a similar concern with amendment 6, but we can come to that.

I take the point about proposed new paragraph (e) and the wording

“such other persons as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate”,

but what would happen in a situation in which the minister did not consider that it was appropriate to consult apprentices or trade unions? Will the minister set out why he considers it appropriate to name the SFC, employers, education bodies and training providers in legislation, but not apprentices or trade unions?

I am supportive of amendment 25 and amendment 24 would support the creation of an industry body. Would the member consider amendment 181 in Daniel Johnson’s name? It is in a much later group, but it stipulates what the role of that body could be, which could address some of the duplication that Ross Greer mentioned. It also sets out that the role would be very specific. That would be our preferred approach. Would Willie Rennie consider that?

I appreciate that, minister, and I am sorry to cut you off in your flow. I was just slightly concerned that you were getting to the end of your comments, so I would not be able to intervene. Forgive me if my intervention means that things do not flow quite so nicely.

In the letter that you sent the committee overnight, you say:

“strategic skills priorities will be published by the Scottish Government in December 2025.”

Could that document include some of the mechanisms that I have set out in my amendment?