Seòmar agus comataidhean

You have set out a compelling case. Are you suggesting that you would consider waiting for stage 3 to choose the percentage and therefore not move the amendment at this stage, or will you move the amendment on a 10 per cent cap?

I thank the minister for his patience and for taking another intervention. I take the point that we are looking at only two additions to the list, but can he set out why apprentices and trade unions did not make it on to the list but the other four did?

You have made good points, particularly about the name of foundation apprenticeships, which is important.

Not having a definition in the bill is an omission because we could end up in a bad situation. Foundation apprenticeships and courses have been identified by experts—the OECD and others—as a really key part of our apprenticeship offer. I would be nervous if they were not mentioned at all in the bill, but we could at stage 3 add a regulation-making power to rename any apprenticeships in the way that you suggest.

Supporting my amendments at this stage would not prevent us from easily renaming apprenticeships that are set out in primary legislation, as we could still include a regulation-making power at stage 3. I hope that members will be able to support my amendments in the group.

Amendment 80, in the name of Stephen Kerr, seeks to address issues that were highlighted in evidence whereby witnesses stressed the need to protect the relationship with the training provider or college. That is incredibly important. I appreciate that the amendment has not yet been spoken to, but I am concerned about the creation of a contractual relationship between the apprentice and the college, and I wonder whether the amendment could create issues through various liabilities. However, I look forward to hearing the member’s rationale for it.

Amendment 6, which is in the minister’s name, specifies who ministers must consult, but that does not include apprentices or trade unions. I wonder whether the minister would be willing to tidy that up and bring it back at stage 3, or whether he could put it on the record that he is clear that apprentices and trade unions should be consulted in that respect.

I am conscious that the member is moving amendments on behalf of his colleague Stephen Kerr. We have had correspondence from Universities Scotland, which has concerns about the difficulty associated with assessing productivity, which is shaped by multiple factors beyond university and other education institutions. Has Stephen Kerr considered that?

Amendment 48 requires a new funding model for colleges to be set out within one year of the act being given royal assent. That is absolutely fundamental, and it is one of the reasons why we could not support the bill at stage 1. We felt that the movement and the disruption—

Will the minister give way?

Amendment 84 says that

“Where the framework relates to a foundation apprenticeship”

it must

“deliver industry-recognised qualifications”,

including

“structured, externally supervised work-based learning”

and must

“be co-designed with employers”.

In a similar vein to the amendments from my colleague Willie Rennie in the previous group, the intention is to ensure that industry and employers can recognise the skills that have been learned during and through foundation apprenticeships. That is why I have lodged amendment 84.

I understand the concerns about definition and about specifying foundation apprenticeships in the bill—I do not share them, but I understand them. I hope, though, that members will at least consider that foundation apprenticeships should be delivered with industry-recognised qualifications as part of the process, include

“structured, externally supervised work-based learning”

and

“be co-designed with employers”.

If those principles are agreeable to members, I hope that they will support amendment 84.

I am looking at the wording of amendment 66. It says, specifically, that a fundable body should

“take reasonable steps to inform and consult the persons mentioned in subsection (2) before implementing any decision that could significantly impact”

provision for learners, levels of staffing or financial sustainability.

If the situation were time limited in the way that the member has described—if it were an emergency, for example, where the fundable body had to close a building in order to look to the safety of both learners and staff—the amendment would provide for that flexibility and reasonableness. It is certainly not my intention that any fundable body be prevented from taking decisions such as those that will be time limited rather than those that could have a longer-term impact on funders and learners. I hope that the words “reasonable” and “significantly” give flexibility to the amendment.

Amendment 67 is about appointing chairs and would require that they have certain skills. The skills that are highlighted are covered the Gillies report, although I recognise that other skills are needed and that it is crucial to take account of communities, class background and so on. The amendment specifically highlights some of the skills that I think could have been beneficial in certain situations that have come to light in recent months and years—including in Dundee—and might have helped to avoid some of the situations that we have seen. That is why I have specifically drawn them out.

Amendment 68 would require that

“the governing body of the fundable body must have due regard to the views of any members representing students and staff”,

that those members receive

“the same documentation as other members of the governing body”

and that they are

“protected from detriment or exclusion for raising concerns in good faith.”

That would include

“giving members representing students and staff a reasonable opportunity to present their views ... documenting the views of such members”

and

“documenting how the governing body responded to any such views presented, and where relevant, the reasons for not aligning with the views of members representing students and staff.“

Trade unions have told us that their members and students associations do not always feel that they have parity with other members on governing bodies. Given the value that trade unions and organisations that represent students can bring to decisions that will fundamentally affect learning in any fundable body, it is incredibly important that such parity exists. Not to have that parity or give due regard to the views of students and staff in such forums brings up the question of whether their representation on those boards is tokenistic. It is important that they be there and that due regard be given to what they say at the time.

My amendments in this group all seek to strengthen governance, decision making and the input that staff and students of institutions have—not to create overburdensome responsibilities on institutions but, rather, to ensure that decisions benefit from the value and expertise that everyone who is affected by them on the governing body will have.

We know, for example, from decisions that have been made without proper engagement with trade unions that even some small concerns could have been resolved if trade unions had been properly engaged and given time to negotiate or to understand what was being put in front of them. Trade unions sometimes attend meetings almost in the dark, without access to the papers that would give them the information to provide an input.

To properly engage with trade unions is not only a matter of good governance—although that is important, too—but about valuing the expertise of everyone around the table, not only that of the chairs and members who represent other interests. Although the latter are crucial, it is important to ensure that any ideas and experience can be drawn on to benefit the institutions.

I will mention other members’ amendments in this group. I have already spoken to Ross Greer’s amendment 51 on the management agents. I genuinely understand why Ross Greer has lodged amendment 54, on the election to the bodies, but I worry slightly about the capacity of institutions to bring forward elections. I also worry about getting people to stand for election. We all understand the great responsibility and privilege that comes with that, and it can be difficult. I would not want institutions to be in a situation in which they could not appoint members to positions because of a lack of interest. Those are my slight concerns about amendment 54.

I support amendment 62, although it is important to consider what it means for the funding of student associations to be “adequate”. I got into politics through student associations, so I understand their value. We have to do everything we can to support them in providing the incredible experience and opportunity for students to supplement the formal learning in an institution with the learning that we all gain from representing others and being at decision-making tables, as is often the case for people who represent students in associations.

I understand why Maggie Chapman lodged amendments 58 and 60. I worry slightly about the detail concerning ONS and the classification of universities. If the amendments put the ONS classification of universities at risk, I cannot support them. Those are my concerns.

Will the minister take a further intervention?

I thank the minister for his patience. If the bill is going to go to stage 3, I want to be absolutely clear on the point around what is outwith legislative competence and the difference between that and a grant offer, so that we all know where we stand. The drafting of Ross Greer’s amendments makes it quite clear that the issue is about the grant offer. For example, amendment 61D mentions the council’s “making a payment” under various sections, and the

“body receiving such a payment”.

So, the issue is about grant funding; it does not appear to be about employment law.