���˿���

That relates to the point that the convener raised at the beginning of the meeting, and I am happy to undertake to write to the committee in the weeks ahead on the SFC’s accountability to ministers and the accountability that it applies to others under the 2005 act, which also relates to the points that we are considering today. There is certainly an emphasis that has been applied throughout the bill process and the stage 2 process, as well as through the engagement that ministers and others have had with the SFC about the SFC playing a proactive role in fair work. I am sure that the SFC has heard that throughout today’s process and will take the points on board in good faith.

I will sum up, convener. I cannot support Daniel Johnson’s amendment 73 and I encourage members to vote against it on the basis that the provision is outwith the legislative competence of the Parliament. The same applies to Ross Greer’s amendment 75, although I note that he has said that he will not move it. I ask Miles Briggs not to move amendment 74 but, again, I offer to consider it ahead of stage 3. Should he decide to press amendment 74, I encourage members to vote against it.

Pam Duncan-Glancy raises an important point that relates to some discussions that we have had this morning. There is a difference between a body applying grant funding conditions and setting conditions in law, which is employment law and firmly reserved to the UK Parliament. That is the difference.

As has been discussed, the amendments in this groups all relate to the definition of Scottish apprenticeships. Before I get to the detail of the amendments, I would like to make a couple of general points for wider context, which I think will be helpful.

In developing the bill, the Government engaged in detailed discussions on the definition of apprenticeships with the SFC, SDS and the SAAB short-life working group. At this point, I record my thanks to SAAB for its detailed, constructive and helpful engagement.

To allow for the future evolution of Scottish apprenticeships, the discussions cautioned against using particular terms in the bill, such as “modern”, “foundation” and “graduate” apprenticeships.

The bill will give ministers the power to amend the definition of Scottish apprenticeships by affirmative regulation. That means, of course, that any change will be subject to extensive consultation and that the Parliament will scrutinise any proposed changes. We need to monitor the effect of the definition following implementation to ensure that it works for everyone.

There are a few amendments in the group and I will address them thematically. My amendment 5 introduces a requirement for Scottish ministers to consult various stakeholders and groups before making regulations that amend the definition of Scottish apprenticeships. From my engagement with employers and business groups, I know that they are keen to be closely involved in any developments in that area, and rightly so. Amendment 5 makes provision for a statutory duty to consult those who play a key role in delivering apprenticeships, such as employers and training providers.

I note Pam Duncan-Glancy’s points about amendment 5—it is amendment 5, not amendment 6—

The amendment, which inserts new subsection 12E(2A)(e) into the 2005 act, talks about

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

which covers the groups that Pam Duncan-Glancy mentioned.

I appreciated listening to fellow ���˿���’ feedback on their amendments and proposals. Amendments 40 and 42, in the name of Miles Briggs, would seek to remove apprenticeships and work-based learning from the SFC’s duty to secure coherent provision and the minister’s duty to provide appropriate support for them. Amendment 40 would not stop the SFC from getting the new functions in the bill, but it would remove obligations to do so coherently. Amendments 40 and 42 would also fundamentally undermine our policy ambition for parity of esteem and cohesion across the tertiary education and training sector. Therefore, I cannot support amendments 40 and 42.

Amendment 24, in the name of Willie Rennie, would in effect reinstate SAAB. I have appreciated my engagement with SAAB in my role so far. We had a very helpful meeting between stages 1 and 2. I value the expertise of SAAB, and the board of the council will continue to play an important role in preparing for the transition of the responsibilities to the SFC along with the board of SAAB. That collaboration and engagement is appreciated. However, the provisions in amendment 24 duplicate the intended functions of the apprenticeship committee that the bill would establish, as Ross Greer said.

The proposals in amendment 24 would add clutter to the landscape and incur additional costs at a time when we are trying to achieve the opposite. In the Government’s view, the apprenticeship committee is the successor to SAAB and it can have such sub-committees as the SFC considers appropriate. There could be additional sub-committees for further input.

I therefore hope that Willie Rennie will not press amendment 24.

That is a fair challenge from Mr Mason. In the past months, I have engaged with Universities Scotland on the question of ONS classification and the careful balancing of the sensitivities around that. In preparation for discussing amendments and going through the legislative process, my Government advisers and I have collectively thought carefully about that balance. We just need to be careful about the cumulative effect that I have described.

I emphasise that our training providers and managing agents do important work in supporting the economy and apprentices. However, I absolutely appreciate the committee’s concerns, and I think that it is legitimate to probe the percentage of fees and those considerations. Of course, we can talk about that more when we come to group 8. To answer George Adam’s point, I think that we, and the SFC, should continue to consider and probe the issue. However, it is important to leave to the SFC the discretionary power to determine the appropriate levels of payment.

I thank Willie Rennie for making those points, and I agree with what he has stated.

If members are content, I will move on to amendment 54. I see the point that Ross Greer is trying to address with it, but I cannot support it as currently worded. I ask him not to move it so that I can consider it further ahead of stage 3.

I am happy to accept Ross Greer’s amendment 55, as the provision adds further weight to the imperative of good governance without crossing into determining operational matters. However, I cannot accept amendment 62, which risks overstepping into operations and funding decisions of universities. We must also consider what “adequate funding” means in the context of a diverse range of associations and unions, some of which are aligned with the National Union of Students Scotland while others are not.

I make it clear that I support the principle of Ross Greer’s amendments 61 and 61A to 61E. However, as he will be aware, and as I have stated, unfortunately, employment law is reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament, which severely limits what this Parliament can do in the areas that are covered by the amendments. Obviously, I wish that the Parliament had full legislative power in those and other areas. However, we might look to explore whether there is a less direct way of challenging excess pay. I ask Ross Greer not to move those amendments today to allow me to consider the matter further.

It is important to emphasise the differentiation, in that grant conditions are not limited in the same way as legislation or the competence of the Parliament. That is the key difference with grant conditions, which Ross Greer raised earlier. There is obviously a difference between that and primary legislation.

Okay, but I would like to make progress, if possible.