���˿���

I disagree. The member has always called for more financial accountability on resources. I take it that his argument is that he believes that £171 million has been diverted by ministers to different priorities, without being transparent.

That is why my amendment would make ministers set out the whether the money that they receive—which, let us remember, has come from employers, who expect it to go towards the people whom they need to run their businesses—has been spent elsewhere.

It would be fair for the Government to say that child poverty is its number 1 priority and that it will use the money to fund its priorities, instead of helping businesses. I would be happy if ministers were willing to be that transparent. We just do not currently have that transparency, and that is what the amendment would achieve.

The establishment of the apprenticeship levy was slightly different. Employers accepted that they would pay 0.5 per cent of their annual wage bill towards it and they expect that to be used to support them. Many businesses that I have spoken to do not access the money because they do not have the capacity or the opportunities to take on board more apprenticeships.

I think that it was respecting devolution. The bill needs to deliver greater transparency in relation to those funds in Scotland. Without such transparency, employers will consistently ask, “Where’s that money gone?” As parliamentarians, all of us should want greater transparency in that regard. I have consistently raised the need for greater transparency. Last week, I asked the Deputy First Minister a question on that very subject in the chamber. She said that the Scottish Government is not against greater transparency or more scrutiny in relation to the apprenticeship levy, so I am surprised by the position of some members of the governing party.

I am pleased that amendment 123 and Daniel Johnson’s amendments give the committee and Parliament an opportunity to make sure that we will have greater transparency. That is why I lodged amendment 123. I am open to any of the amendments on the issue, with a view to ensuring that, at the end of the day, the bill delivers a framework in which reporting on the apprenticeship levy and how it is spent in Scotland is more transparent than it currently is.

It has been reported that £875 million has been raised from the apprenticeship levy, but that only £704 million has actually been spent by Scottish Government agencies on apprenticeships. Does the minister recognise those figures?

It is important to note that Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat members are trying to achieve a framework that provides more transparency. The minister has not outlined whether he would take that forward with us, so I will move amendment 123, and I hope that at stage 3 we can improve on it.

Amendment 123 moved—[Miles Briggs].

The minister suggested earlier that amendments were criticising the Scottish Funding Council. I do not agree with that characterisation. This group of amendments—lodged by Pam Duncan-Glancy, Daniel Johnson and me—is more about concern for the delivery and expansion of apprenticeships and the potential for those to be lost in translation through the bill.

Amendment 197 is straightforward. During the committee’s evidence sessions, it became clear that major concerns were being expressed about the financial implications of the transfer of responsibilities under the legislation. Amendment 197 would create a new part on transitional measures, after section 17, which would require the Scottish ministers to provide the Parliament with financial transparency about the implementation of the legislation. As soon as is reasonably practicable after royal assent, the ministers would have to lay before the Parliament a statement outlining the financial implications of any transfer of functions resulting from the legislation.

That, and other amendments, could ensure that the Parliament is fully informed of the financial impact of moving 59 responsibilities to the SFC. It would also, I hope, provide a check for the Parliament to ensure that there are not any unintended consequences or potential reductions in the delivery and facilitation of apprenticeships—which should be our greatest concern. I am concerned that the bill could create more of a pause in our apprenticeship system as it comes to terms with the changes. That is why I have lodged amendment 197, which I will move.

Amendments 129, 130 and 131 add training providers to the list of organisations that can be required by regulation to notify the Scottish Funding Council about specified matters. It means that, alongside post-16 education bodies, training providers involved in delivering apprenticeships or work-based learning could be brought under the same notification requirements by the Scottish ministers. That widens the consultation duty to cover all organisations involved in apprenticeships, work-based learning and national training programmes, and not just post-16 education bodies. The amendments would ensure that such organisations are formally included in the consultation process. I welcome Ross Greer’s amendment 128.

I welcome the minister’s acceptance of amendment 145, and I also welcome my colleague Stephen Kerr’s amendments and the work that has been done to ensure that these various important aspects are covered. The Scottish Conservatives cannot support amendment 47, as we do not think that it is a welcome step forward; indeed, the Scottish Funding Council must be independent of ministers and not influenced by their priorities. We will support amendment 16.

I press amendment 145.

Amendment 145 agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

Section 12—Consideration of skills needs and socio-economic issues

I am grateful for that clarification. I hope that any further conversations about making it easier for councils to do so will take place ahead of stage 3, and that the minister and his officials will look at that.

I know of some really good work taking place in my region in Edinburgh to look at shortages of adult carers. That work is led by different organisations—Edinburgh College as well as the City of Edinburgh Council. There is a need to make that work more streamlined. Who would be the best lead on it? It should not always be the college; that role could sit in the council as well.

I am happy to have conversations with the minister on any inclusion of that approach in the bill at stage 3, so I will not move amendments 151 to 171, which I am sure members will be glad to hear.