���˿���

I very much agree with amendment 66 in principle. It is very similar to amendments that Pam Duncan-Glancy and I have lodged to previous bills. However, I wonder about its operability and whether it is flexible enough.

I am thinking of a scenario that a number of institutions have faced recently, when they had to close entire buildings on a moment’s notice due to the presence of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Obviously, that had a significant impact on the ability to provide for learners, but it would not have been appropriate to require them to inform trade unions, student bodies and so on beforehand, because they had to act the moment that they became aware of the issue. Does the member think that her amendment is flexible enough to take into account such situations?

That is the point that I struggle with. I hope that the minister can correct me, but I do not see any difference between what is in his amendment 12 and the power that SDS already has and simply has not been using. It is within SDS’s powers now to effectively cap the amount that managing agents take, and it has just not done that. We are moving responsibility from one body to another, but I am not clear how Parliament can have confidence that that will result in effective caps being set and good use of public money.

If the minister is amenable to working with me further on the issue, I will not move amendment 51, but I have not yet heard a case for why Parliament should be confident that his amendment 12 will result in a change of practice. We are shifting the power from one organisation to another, but there is no substantive change in what is expected of the body. Amendment 12 is very vague, as it talks about what would be a “reasonable” charge and so on.

As I said, I am happy not to move amendment 51, if the minister is happy to work with me ahead of stage 3 to consider whether ultimate responsibility for setting a cap could sit with ministers.

I take his point that, if his amendment 12 is agreed to, the SFC would be bound by law to do something that SDS is not currently bound by law to do. However, my question is about what it will be bound by law to do. The wording of the minister’s amendment is vague, and I am not convinced that it would result in substantive change in practice.

Will the minister take another intervention?

I appreciate that, and I appreciate how long we are taking on the issue. With respect, I do not understand that answer. As I understand it, college principals in Scotland are not unionised, so it is not a matter of union engagement being required. In relation to matters such as payment of the real living wage, as John Mason pointed out and as I said earlier, we have conditioned those elsewhere.

The minister’s argument seems to be that he still needs time to consider the issue. I mean no offence by this, but has the Government come to committee today without having considered it? I appreciate that the time between the deadline for lodging amendments and the first day of stage 2 is quite narrow, but I have been raising the matter of applying the chief executive pay framework to college principals with the Scottish Government for a number of years now, so I am a bit surprised that the Government does not have a clear answer as to what its position is on the issue and the legality of it.

Amendment 86 is straightforward. It specifies that, before amending or revoking an apprenticeship framework, the council may consult with such persons as it considers appropriate and that it must publish the reasons for the amendment or revocation of a framework as soon as is reasonably practicable afterwards. As has been mentioned, it is similar to the minister’s amendments 6 and 7 and Willie Rennie’s amendment 29.

I would be happy not to move amendment 86 and to support the other amendments if the minister were amenable to revisiting the issue at stage 3. What is specifically missing from his proposal—and which is included in mine, and which I would welcome as an amendment at stage 3—is the requirement for the council to publish its reasons for changes or revocations. I do not think that that is a cumbersome requirement to put on the council; I think that, particularly when a framework is fully revoked, it is reasonable to expect the council simply to lay out its reasons for doing so. If the minister is amenable to working on that ahead of stage 3, I am happy not to press amendment 86.

Amendment 87 seeks to add in that, when ministers make further provisions in relation to the process that the council should follow when it is preparing, publishing, amending, revoking the frameworks and so on, they ensure that details on consultation carried out with apprentices and those who represent them are included. The amendment is somewhat similar to Willie Rennie’s amendment 29, which is about consultation with employers, in seeking to specify how that process should be carried out.

I was not clear from the minister’s opening remarks what the Government’s position is in relation to amendment 87, and I wonder whether he will clarify it, as well as the Government’s position on amendment 86 and potentially working up a stage 3 amendment on compelling the council to publish its reasons for any changes that it makes. I would be happy not to press amendment 87 if, as with amendment 86, we could work together towards stage 3 amendments, but I am not sure whether the minister was indicating that in relation to amendment 87.

I sympathise with why you are keen to see a clearer definition of foundation apprenticeships. I take on board that foundation apprenticeships are almost not apprenticeships, as we have just discussed in relation to Willie Rennie’s amendments, but I wonder whether you share my concern that defining one particular apprenticeship would make it challenging in future if we were to undertake any reforms of the system. If we decide in a couple of years’ time, once the bill is enacted, that we want to make substantial changes, even if it were to do something like renaming foundation apprenticeships—I do not think that they should be called that because the term “foundation” is unhelpful and harks back to the era of standard grades—we would need to introduce more primary legislation to do so.

Do you recognise that concern? Could we perhaps include a ministerial regulation-making power that would ensure that we do not need to go through the primary legislative process again if we need to make even minor adaptations to the system at some point in the future?

Would the minister take one brief further intervention?

I appreciate that, minister.

To clarify, is the Government’s objection to amendment 69 a matter of drafting, or does the Government object to the policy objective in relation to recognition of unions?

I will not press amendment 69, on the basis of what the minister has said. I am happy to try to work with him ahead of stage 3. However, with respect, I suggest that it would be helpful for the Government to come to such proceedings and be absolutely clear on where it agrees or disagrees with the policy objective of amendments. I accept that members lodge amendments with deficient drafting, given the limited resources that are available. The legislation team do fantastic work, but they are doing a monumental amount of work on our behalf.

It often feels as if the Government uses issues of drafting as an excuse to obscure the fact that it disagrees with the policy objective of particular amendments and simply does not want to put that on the record. It would be much more helpful for proceedings if the Government was totally straightforward and said whether it agrees with the objective of an amendment. If it agrees with the objective but the wording is deficient, it is clear that we can decide to not move it at stage 2 and work to produce something for stage 3.

I will move amendment 71. I am grateful for the minister’s support for it, and I hope that the committee agrees to it. I expect that Miles Briggs’s amendment 72 will be agreed to, which will make my amendment 75 unnecessary.

I will finish on this group by picking up on the debate between the minister and Pam Duncan-Glancy on the point that putting particular conditions into legislation, in the Government’s view, takes us beyond the Government’s competence. It sounds as though the Government’s position is that it is possible to achieve many of the objectives through policy decisions that are outwith legislation, by simply setting conditions of grants rather than putting those into legislation. The issues of competence would come to the fore if those objectives were put into primary legislation.

That would be a perfectly respectable position if the Government was putting those conditions in grant funding using its policy discretion. My frustration is that almost all, if not all, of the issues that we have been discussing today are not new. For example, before 2021, we had been told for around a decade that it was not possible for the Scottish Government to set conditions around procurement and grants in relation to the real living wage. In September and October of 2021, the minister’s party, together with mine, simply delivered that, and it turned out that it was possible.

I respect the Government’s position that it does not want to put those provisions into primary legislation because of the issues of competence and the risks that that might pose to the bill as a whole. However, the Government should make maximum use of its existing powers to set the conditions directly as a matter of Government policy rather than putting them into legislation. That would be a much more defensible position with which to push back against amendments, because amending bills is the only way in which other members of the Parliament have an opportunity to influence policy decisions. If the Government were simply following through on the agenda that it allegedly believes in in relation to fair work, we would not need to lodge amendments and test the legislative competence of the Parliament, because the Government would simply be getting on with setting those conditions in the first place.