���˿���

I am happy to have further engagement, but we need to be careful in that consideration, as I have emphasised. We have covered the amendment significantly, so I have no more to say.

I would be happy to give an undertaking to consider that ahead of stage 3. I heard clearly the views of Willie Rennie and of others in the stage 1 debate and thereafter about the need for us in the Government to underline and emphasise to business and industry that their input through the apprenticeship committee and in other ways is vital. I was clear that I wanted to emphasise to business through some of our amendments and through the process of the bill that we want their input to be significant and appropriate. I am happy to consider Willie Rennie’s suggestions.

On Stephen Kerr’s amendment 43, I am concerned that it is ambiguous as to what constitutes

“measurable improvements in skills, productivity and learner achievement.”

Obviously, it would be the intention of this or any other Scottish Government to provide funding that supported improvements in skills, productivity and learner achievement. The terms and conditions of funding that ministers can impose on the SFC under existing powers in the 2005 act and the bill would, in my view, be the appropriate vehicle to seek to achieve those outcomes.

I have no objection to the rationale behind amendments 44 and 45, in the name of Miles Briggs. However, they name specific strategies in primary legislation that, inevitably, will evolve, even if only by name. I appreciate what the member is trying to achieve and, if he agrees not to move the amendments, I would be willing to consider something similar framed in more general terms at stage 3.

Again, I can understand the motivation behind amendment 46, in the name of Stephen Kerr. The performance of the SFC is important now and will be even more so when the additional functions that are set out in the bill are conferred on it. We will monitor the SFC’s performance during the transition to the new arrangements and thereafter. However, I am concerned that a statutory requirement for an independent evaluation of the performance of the SFC every three years could be expensive and would not necessarily achieve the desired outcome.

I will reflect on some of that shortly—and I thank Miles Briggs for raising that point.

As I said, amendment 76, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, seeks to add foundation apprenticeships to the definition of Scottish apprenticeships. The bill has separate provisions for work-based learning, which will allow the current arrangements for foundation apprenticeships to continue—and the Government wants them to continue—when taken with Jackie Dunbar’s amendment 10, which we are to consider later. That is an important point in our considerations.

It is important to note that several employers and others—I can think of some headteachers in my constituency, for example—do not like the term “foundation apprenticeship”, even though they are very supportive of those apprenticeships and of what they deliver. It is the term that many people do not like, whether because school pupils are not in a contract of employment or for other reasons. It can be perceived as devaluing apprenticeships, notwithstanding the value of foundation apprenticeships for what they achieve. There is some contention and deliberation regarding the term, and that is one reason why we were careful not to use it in the bill. I can assure Pam Duncan-Glancy, however, that foundation apprenticeships are provided for by our new definition of “work-based learning”, and I hope that that is sufficient for her not to move her amendment 76. Should she do so, I would encourage members to vote against it.

Miles Briggs’s amendment 77 appears to seek to remove the requirement that an apprentice works for reward, which is not consistent with how the provisions in the bill define apprenticeships. The definition of apprenticeships in the bill requires that the apprentice works for reward, so that voluntary work is excluded and to seek to protect apprentices.

The bill requires that

“an apprentice works for a person ... for reward”,

which excludes self-employed people. In the case of self-employed individuals, there is no obvious way to overcome the fact that the employer is also the employee and apprentice, which creates a barrier to ensuring adherence to the standards and quality requirements. The employee, employer and learning provider relationship is central to ensuring that quality and standards are maintained. For those reasons, I do not support amendment 77 and would ask the committee to vote against it if it is moved.

Amendment 27, from Willie Rennie, seeks to require the apprentice to achieve the competence required by employers. As has been highlighted by other members, that is potentially problematic. Whether the apprentice is successful in achieving the competence required is most likely not knowable until near or at the end of the apprenticeship. Further, an apprenticeship is still an apprenticeship, even if, ultimately, the individual fails to gain that competence. Therefore, with respect, we do not support amendment 27 and ask the committee to vote against it, should it be moved by Willie Rennie.

Amendments 28, 91 and 91A cannot be taken forward due to the reservation of employment law. In any event, the apprenticeship agreement addresses how training requirements are to be met and is a separate matter from the particulars of employment that are protected under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and national minimum wage legislation.

I have already explained that foundation apprenticeships are caught by the definition of “work-based learning” in the bill, so I cannot support Miles Briggs’s amendment 83. I hope that he accepts the explanation given earlier and will not move the amendment.

With regard to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 92, section 22 of the 2005 act, as amended by the bill, already requires the SFC to collaborate with local authorities on the exercise of their functions.

Amendment 92 would also make provision for annual reporting to the Scottish Parliament. Although Pam Duncan-Glancy makes a good point about the importance of clear and transparent reporting on apprenticeship delivery, I suggest that that approach should be taken holistically across Scottish apprenticeships and work-based learning. I would like to consider that further and, at stage 3, bring back a coherent and cohesive approach to reporting on key measures in the bill, including this one. I therefore ask Pam Duncan-Glancy not to move amendment 92. Should she do so, I encourage members to vote against it.

I ask members to vote for my amendment 5 and Stephen Kerr’s amendment 79, but, to summarise, I cannot support any of the other amendments in the group. I hope that I have explained why I have asked members not to move them. Should any do so, I encourage the committee to vote against them.

I thank Willie Rennie for the opportunity to intervene. The key points of avoiding unsatisfactory training arrangements and the concerns that he and SAAB have raised about block release are for the frameworks as well as for consideration here. I appreciate his point that we need to keep openness and flexibility for certain circumstances. The example that I gave was niche—I was going to say “unusual”. However, we want to keep that flexibility, openness and transparency, and that is considered in our frameworks.

I give an undertaking to have further dialogue with Mr Rennie on those points. Although I stand by the need for flexibility and allowing room for innovation, he and I align on the need for high standards and good delivery. I would be grateful for further dialogue with Mr Rennie ahead of stage 3.

As I have emphasised already, employers play a critical role in the development of apprenticeship frameworks; we want them to play that role, and I want to make that clear in the legislation. Amendments 6 and 7 seek to achieve that and, I hope, demonstrate that, since becoming minister, I have spent time listening carefully to the views of business and employers in relation to this bill and seeking to act upon them.

Amendments 6 and 7 require the SFC to

“have regard to the views”

of employers when preparing apprenticeship frameworks and before amending or revoking such a framework. The SFC is required to have regard to, rather than to consult, employers because it is expected that, in many cases, the SFC will already be very familiar with the views of employers from the apprenticeship committee and from regular and extensive engagement. Where it does not already have that information, the SFC will need to seek out the views of employers in whatever way is appropriate. Consultation will, of course, continue to be one such way.

Amendment 8 is a technical consequential amendment.

I welcome that Willie Rennie, too, wants employers to have a formal role in this process. I will listen to his arguments on his amendment 29, but I hope that he might consider that my amendments 6 and 7 have largely the same effect. The same—

—applies to Ross Greer’s amendment 86, and I will now take Pam Duncan-Glancy’s intervention.

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for raising those points again and reiterate for clarity and completeness that there was no intention on my part or the Government’s to deliberately exclude anyone. We wanted to create amendments that were tight and well drafted and which created the possibility for a wide range of stakeholders to be included.

As with the debate on the previous group of amendments, I note and appreciate the points that have been raised by Pam Duncan-Glancy and can consider them with her further. I think that the member will also share my concern that we do not want to have a very long list and that we must consider what drafting is appropriate. We will consider that issue further, including in relation to amendment 87.

Having dealt with that intervention, I will conclude my remarks by saying that I will listen carefully to the debate on all the other amendments in the group, and I will set out more of my views in my closing remarks.

I move amendment 6.

Like colleagues, I have quite a large contribution to make, so please bear with me. I am grateful to all members who have lodged amendments in this group and I understand and appreciate the rationale behind them all. Colleagues will appreciate that we have to be cognisant and considerate in order to ensure that we make good law, avoid unintended consequences—particularly with regard to ONS classification—and legislate within the competence of the Scotland Act 1998. Many of my remarks will be focused around those areas.

Pam Gosal’s amendment 3 would place a condition on the SFC to require the bodies that it funds to take action to address gender-based violence against staff and students. As I understand it, the amendment aligns with EmilyTest’s goal of ensuring a minimum standard of operation in higher and further education with regard to gender-based violence. The Scottish Government shares that goal, and I pay tribute to the campaign work of Fiona Drouet and EmilyTest, along with other groups that engage with higher and further education campuses, for what they have done on this issue. Pam Gosal will know that, before I rejoined the Government, I had quite significant engagement with them, including in my constituency capacity.

We want to continue to work collaboratively with stakeholders such as EmilyTest, Rape Crisis Scotland, Police Scotland, Universities Scotland and Colleges Scotland to develop an approach that supports colleges and universities to protect and support students. Good work is on-going across higher and further education to address gender-based violence issues on campuses, which the Government absolutely intends to build on. We understand that, collectively, there is more work to do.

However, I have technical concerns about the amendment as it is currently drafted. It requires funded bodies to engage with an evaluated framework, but there is currently only one such framework in place—EmilyTest—and engagement comes with financial and resource implications for institutions. The risk is that the amendment as currently drafted would not be effective if EmilyTest, for whatever reason, were to cease to exist, because there is no alternative framework and one would need to be identified and developed.

It is clear and right that all parties should work together towards the same goal on the issue. I want to give effect to the aspiration of Pam Gosal’s amendment in a way that is practical and deliverable, so that it becomes law and practice that institutions take on responsibility for addressing gender-based violence. I hope that Pam Gosal agrees not to move amendment 3, so that I might further consider how to introduce a reframed version of the amendment at stage 3.

Convener, I propose to speak to all the other amendments by grouping them by member and working through them methodically.

First, I turn to Miles Briggs’s amendments 50 and 63. As the architect of fair work first, the Government has clear expectations about its application in grant making, wherever and whenever it happens in government. However, I am not certain that we can prescribe its application in law to the SFC and the grants that it awards. I am, however, happy to look again at the issue to see whether we can come back with something workable at stage 3. I commit to doing so and I ask Miles Briggs not to press amendment 50.

Although I have great sympathy with the intent behind amendment 63 and hope that institutions are supporting students’ mental health and wellbeing in practice without being prescribed to do so, I cannot support the amendment. We need to respect the autonomy of higher education institutions and avoid attaching so many statutory conditions to their operation through funding that we risk them being reclassified as public bodies by the ONS. That would create huge issues for the Government and for our institutions, not least by compromising their independence, their ability to raise funds from other sources and their ability to act commercially when it is appropriate to do so.

I thank Ross Greer for emphasising that point. Regarding college principal pay, there are concerns about imposing pay policy via funding conditions, as that might not be appropriate in terms of union engagement and so on. I can take that away and give it further consideration, but we have to think carefully about the whole circumstances.

I thank members for the debate on the amendments in the group. It is important that we do all that we can together to ensure that appropriate and relevant stakeholders and delivery partners are involved in apprenticeships and engaged in the development and amendment of the frameworks. The amendments that have been proposed are important in that regard.

Therefore, I am very sympathetic to the spirit of Ross Greer’s amendment 87, which seeks to engage representatives of apprentices and prospective apprentices in the process, an issue Pam Duncan-Glancy raised with me in her intervention during my opening remarks. I ask Ross Greer not to move the amendment today, which he has kindly suggested as an option, and to let us consider together how we can improve the bill at stage 3 in that vein.

Although I understand the rationale behind Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 84, I cannot support it, because what we are now calling foundation apprenticeships are provided for through the work-based learning section in the bill as drafted. I am not proposing that that be subject to the framework requirements that apply to Scottish apprenticeships. The approach was arrived at in developing the bill’s provisions on Scottish apprenticeship and work-based learning and in the extensive engagement that was carried out prior to introduction with the SFC, SDS and the SAAB short-life working group on the definition of apprenticeship. Indeed, I referred to that context and engagement prior to introduction in our debate on the last group.

Stephen Kerr’s amendment 85 seeks to put colleges and local authorities ahead of private training providers when it comes to training apprentices to meet the requirements set out in the apprenticeship frameworks. I do not believe that that is necessarily appropriate, because I am keen to see the mixed economy of public and private provision continue. Furthermore, the relevant requirements of an apprenticeship are expected to be prepared not with a view to who would provide the training but with the required standards or qualifications to be achieved in mind.

The remaining amendments in the group set out other stakeholders that the SFC should consult or involve when preparing, publishing, amending and revoking frameworks. Amendment 88, in the name of Monica Lennon, covers trade and industry representatives; amendment 89, in the name of Stephen Kerr, covers employers and representatives of industry in the relevant occupational activity; and amendment 90, also in the name of Stephen Kerr, covers representatives of managing agents and training providers.

I can see and understand why members have lodged those amendments. Clearly, a wide range of people could be involved in the process. However, there is also a case to be made for avoiding long lists of potential consultees in the bill, not least because of the risk of someone important being overlooked. That was the thinking behind the drafting and the openness of the Government’s amendment.

Therefore, it would, in my view, be preferable to leave the matter to regulations, but I appreciate that there is an appetite to include more detail in the bill. I have heard that clearly from members around the table today, so I undertake to give the matter more thought ahead of stage 3. I am happy to engage with colleagues on those points.