���˿���

If colleagues agree, I suggest that amendments 6 and 7, in my name, which refer to

“such other persons as the Council considers likely to be affected”

be agreed to, as that is an inclusive approach. Then, because I have undertaken to consider Ross Greer’s amendment 87, I will also consider amendments 88 to 90, and we can think collectively about how we get the balance right at stage 3.

I give an undertaking in good faith that I am pleased to engage on those points, on the amendments and on their themes ahead of stage 3, and I therefore ask members to vote for amendments 6 to 8, in my name.

Moving on to Willie Rennie’s amendment 29, I listened carefully to the points that he made in response to my opening remarks, and I want to engage further with him on those matters ahead of stage 3. I must emphasise the comments that were made during the debate on an earlier group: we must ensure that we have the necessary input and expertise from the business community and industry, and consider together whether there is a need for further independence. I am happy to engage further with Willie Rennie on the points raised in amendment 29, if he does not move it today. If he does, I encourage members to vote against it at this juncture.

I ask the same with regard to Ross Greer’s amendment 86. As I have stated, I would be grateful if Ross Greer did not move amendment 87, so that we can consider the issue together further, but if he does move it, I encourage members to vote against it. The same applies to Monica Lennon’s amendment 88 and Stephen Kerr’s amendments 89 and 90.

As I have said, I cannot support Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 84, nor Stephen Kerr’s amendment 85, and I encourage members to vote against both.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Amendment 84 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for providing that additional context. There is perhaps a bit of a misunderstanding. To be clear, amendment 4 intends to make the power to pay more flexible. It is not about people; it is about companies and their situation. I thank the member for seeking that clarity.

I will move on to the other amendments in group 5. Ross Greer’s amendment 69 refers to “an institution”. Unfortunately, it is not clear what that term means. The persons delivering national training programmes might not be institutions but could be any type of person. Therefore, attaching such a grant condition would be unhelpful in limiting who can provide training programmes solely to institutions.

I thank Miles Briggs for setting out the rationale behind his amendments. However, I think that—

Since my appointment, I have sought proactively to listen to the concerns and proposals in the college sector, whether is that through the sector body, Colleges Scotland, or the relevant unions, including the EIS, which I met with again yesterday, or through engagement with specific colleges, with which I have endeavoured to engage directly as much as possible within my capacity. I am very open to listening to and considering both concerns and ideas and proposals from the sector.

I am just about to pivot to the positives of why I think that there is quite a lot of alignment across the Parliament on the need to move forward, so I will continue speaking to the amendments, which may help to answer the member’s intervention.

Although it is important that Scottish ministers are engaged in changes to funding allocation models, it is my view that the changes must be shaped by the sector itself.

Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 48 is broadly similar to amendment 49 from Miles Briggs. Both are largely consistent with the work that the Government has been, and will continue, undertaking—as I have just described—which makes it clear that reviewing funding models does not require statutory underpinning. I thank both members for lodging their amendments but, in the Government’s view, to support both amendments would result in duplication.

I am therefore content to support Miles Briggs’s amendment 49. I appreciate all that he has brought forward on the credit system so far during my current tenure in my role; it has been very helpful for me to listen to his points and concerns in that regard. I believe—with respect to Pam Duncan-Glancy—that his amendment presents a more cogent proposal for a review. I therefore hope that Pam Duncan-Glancy might not press her amendment 48 and the committee can vote unanimously for amendment 49.

I emphasise that I am happy to have further engagement, because the general principles of value for money, fair work practices and transparency are as important to the Government as they are to the member. I am just being cautious about committing to a similar amendment because of the employment law reservation. I must be very strong on that, because we cannot stray outwith the competence of this Parliament. I am happy to have further constructive dialogue, because I think that the member and I are in alignment on the importance of the general principles of value for money, fair work practices and transparency about the spending of public money, but we must be careful about the drafting of primary legislation.

I take the points that Pam Duncan-Glancy has made in her deliberations on the amendments, and we will continue to consider them. Our main aspiration is to ensure that we do not have a long list of all the different engagement that might or might not need to take place. New paragraph (e) allows other appropriate stakeholders to be involved in such considerations.

Performance is measured through the 2005 act and the stipulations that are set out in it.

Moving forward, there is merit in taking such an approach to the evaluation, but we would wish to consider the timescales that are involved. Therefore, I hope that, on behalf of Stephen Kerr, Miles Briggs will not move amendment 46, to allow me to consider more appropriate timescales for stage 3.

I will just sum up, convener, if that is okay.

I encourage members to support my amendments 1 and 2. I support Willie Rennie’s amendment 25 and encourage members to vote for it. I encourage members to vote against Miles Briggs’s amendments 40 and 42, should he move them—I have set out what engagement would be helpful to have on that ahead of stage 3.

Given our discussion and the undertaking that I gave, I hope that Willie Rennie will not move amendment 24. If he does, I encourage members to vote against it. The same applies to Stephen Kerr’s amendment 43. I also invite Miles Briggs not to move amendments 44 and 45, but should he do so, I encourage members to vote against them. Finally, I hope that Stephen Kerr’s amendment 46 is not moved, but, if it is, I encourage members to vote against it.

I am sorry—I should have said that we will engage with Miles Briggs on amendments 44 and 45, but I have made it very clear that we do not think that amendments 40 and 42 are of merit in any way.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 40 moved—[Miles Briggs].

It was not a specific or deliberate exclusion. The purpose of including in amendment 5 those who are listed in new paragraphs (a) to (d) is to emphasise the importance of what they would bring to the considerations. However, there was no intentional exclusion of the groups that Pam Duncan-Glancy has highlighted, or any others.

I take the points that have been made on the record and will consider them further, and I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for raising them. As I have emphasised throughout the consideration of the bill, the views of trade unions, apprentices and those who are being educated in our wider higher and further education programmes and courses are vital and significant.

I turn to Stephen Kerr’s amendments 79 and 80, which seek to add other parties, such as colleges and training providers, to the apprenticeship agreement. The provisions in the bill do not require a tripartite agreement, but they do not preclude one. I hope that that reassurance is helpful for members, including Miles Briggs, who spoke on behalf of Stephen Kerr. I ask him not to move amendment 80.

I am happy to support amendment 79. It is worth remembering that colleges can be training providers, so amendment 79 is sufficient. The amendment allows flexibility for future innovation where several training providers could be involved. I am grateful to Stephen Kerr for introducing that aspect to the bill and to Miles Briggs for speaking to it today on his behalf.

Amendment 26, in the name of Willie Rennie, and amendment 78, in the name of Miles Briggs, seek to require apprentices to be under a contract of employment. Although we expect that the vast majority of apprentices will be under a contract of employment, the bill, as introduced, includes a carefully framed definition that does not exclude any arrangements that would otherwise come with an apprenticeship. We want to allow for apprenticeships for office-holders and other persons who are appointed or sponsored rather than formally employed, such as clergypersons, as happens in England. There is a wealth of possible scenarios for which we do not want to limit future innovation. I emphasise that apprentices are given the full protections of an employee as set out in the Employment Rights Act 1996, so, with respect to colleagues, amendments 26 and 78 are unnecessary and could potentially be limiting. On that basis, the Government does not support those two amendments, and I would be grateful if amendment 26 was not pressed and amendment 78 was not moved. If they are pressed and moved, I would respectfully urge the committee to reject them.

Amendment 76, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, seeks to add foundation apprenticeships to the definition of Scottish apprenticeships. As I said earlier in relation to our engagement with SAAB, while we seek, in the bill, to create a definition of Scottish apprenticeships, there was a determination, noting what the SFC, SDS and the SAAB short-life working group fed back to us, not to specifically define “foundation”, “graduate” and “modern” apprenticeships.