Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the minister for the intervention and for recognising the desire to make the system better. One of the comments in the letter to the committee from the minister is about the need for more

“due diligence on the implications and risks associated with”

the options

“prior to making a final decision”

on how the IT system will be transferred to the SFC. I take the minister’s point that it is about an IT system, but, ultimately, it is also fair to say that the IT system in question is pretty integral to the delivery of apprenticeships. That is the point.

Amendment 120, in the name of Daniel Johnson, requires the SFC to report on the amount of funding provided, including

“in relation to apprenticeship frameworks, the level of funding provided for an individual Scottish apprenticeship”

and seeks to address the concern around contribution rates being frozen and stakeholders worrying that that could all get lost within an organisation that has a lot else on. As the minister said in his letter, it will require time to be able to do that. Daniel Johnson’s amendment seeks to protect some of that process, make it very transparent and help people to understand where money is changing hands, including between employers and training providers.

Before I conclude my remarks, I note that we will support many other amendments in the group, and where we do not, it is likely that we support the intention of the amendments—there are too many to name in the interest of time—but we have amendments in either my name or Daniel Johnson’s name that seek to do something very similar.

Amendment 124, in the name of Daniel Johnson, sets out that

“The Council must secure that . . . providers of high quality training and learning may continue to receive payments from the Council (on the same basis as post-16 education bodies)”,

and would require a formal transition scheme to be arranged so that no learner employer is stranded mid-programme.

Amendment 196, in the name of Daniel Johnson, would require ministers to lay a statement before the Scottish Parliament to set out the anticipated costs of transferring apprenticeship functions and confirm that the funding for delivery of apprenticeships will not change as a result of the transfer.

In relation to both those amendments, I note that the minister’s letter to the committee of 24 November outlines that transfer costs have again been upgraded, this time by approximately £2 million. The minister also states in the letter that no decisions have been taken about some of the transfer options associated with the bill, including decisions on IT, as the minister set out earlier. One of the options outlined in the letter suggests that the transfer would not complete until 2029.

Everybody wants the system to work for the end users—the learners, the people who need the skills and the people who deliver them. That is what the amendments seek to make happen. Therefore it is disappointing that it would appear that, yet again, a bill has come before Parliament for which the diligence work to get the systems right—including determining the cost of transferring staff, which I have not touched on yet—has yet to be done, and we are now looking at delays in commencement as a result. One would expect that for a bill of this sort, if the end user is the minister’s focus, those issues would already have been addressed. Instead, it appears that we have a bill that is not quite ready or fit for purpose.

I will speak to my amendments in the group. Amendment 198 would require ministers to engage with trade unions on the transfer of functions or staff, restructuring and material changes to terms and conditions. Ministers would have to establish formal joint groups and share information with them and report on that engagement to Parliament. Those are fairly standard requirements that would protect the staff who work in those organisations. The staff I have spoken to are worried, not just about great inertia in the system resulting from the structural change that the Government is proposing, but about the lack of consultation and engagement in the process to date to ensure that their rights and conditions are protected. Amendment 198 seeks to ensure that that engagement happens.

Amendment 200 would require that ministers set out a “pre-implementation report”. That is crucial because of the uncertainty that trade unions, including Unison and the Public and Commercial Services Union, and others have highlighted to members individually and to the committee as a whole.

Amendment 199 would require the Scottish Government to set out the functions and roles that will be transferred. If the Government did not want to do that in advance of royal assent, it would have to do so as soon as possible afterwards, to give a level of stability to staff. The staff are essential for the system to work, and are working day in, day out for this to happen, but they do not yet know whether they will be working for one organisation or another, or, indeed, whether they will be working in SDS under a managed contract with the SFC, because the system is not quite ready to transfer.

Amendments 208, 209, 211 and 210 would provide that regulations on staff and functions transfer can happen only after the consultation, a pre-implementation report and a statement on the uninterrupted processes and—crucially—the uninterrupted provision of apprenticeships.

I move amendment 124.

Amendment 204, in my name, would set out that ministers must direct that the body administering funds for student support in FE,

“must ensure that advice ... is provided in person (if requested by the person applying for ... such funds), ... is reasonably available at the place of further education, ... is adequately resourced and has regard ... to the needs of learners at risk of exclusion, including low-income students, student carers, disabled learners and rural and island learners”.

If a new body is to administer funds, it must build on the key unique selling points of the way in which they are currently provided in further education.

The amendment further requires that the body

“report annually to the Scottish Ministers on whether the provision of advice met the conditions ... and what action, if any, the body or person intends to take to ensure access to advice about the provision of funds”.

That is to recognise the difference in the way in which student support funds have been given to students studying different courses across the piece and the fact that college students have traditionally been able to access it a bit differently from university students. Colleges and college students are keen to preserve the good bits of that rather than lose them in the transition.

Amendment 205 requires the SFC and SAAS to,

“within 12 months of the provisions in Part 1 and Part 3 coming into force, jointly prepare a report on the provision of maintenance support”.

The report should

“compare core maintenance support entitlements across further education, higher education, national training programmes and apprenticeships, ... assess distributional impacts on protected groups and socio-economic disadvantage, including by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile and care-experienced status”

and

“set out options for improving equity and adequacy, including indicative costs and implementation considerations.”

The report should be

“published and laid before the Scottish Parliament”

and the Government should respond to it.

The effect and purpose of the amendment is to look at the maintenance system in the round and create a mechanism to review it. The bill proposes to change tertiary education in various ways, so it is an appropriate juncture to consider the sorts of maintenance support that are available to students attending or undertaking any post-16 education. Amendment 205 was lodged to test the Government’s intentions or commitment to considering whether maintenance support needs to be reviewed.

I press amendment 127, but, in the light of the minister’s comments about amendment 195, I will support his amendment 17 and will not move amendment 195.

I welcome the minister’s clarification on that point. In that case, I will move amendment 174 when the time comes.

In the meantime, I am prepared to work with the Government. I have made it clear that the council must have representation from students and trade unions across the different bodies. I hope that the minister will help to deliver an amendment to that effect at stage 3, so I will not move amendment 171 at this point.

I have been pulling up the exact detail of amendment 113. Although I appreciate the conversation that we had last week on fair work practices, does the minister accept that there must be a way of determining clearly and transparently whether the money leaving the Government and the public purse and going to organisations is providing value for money and whether those organisations are adopting fair work practices? How else, if not through amendment 113, does the Government plan to assure that that is the case?

Amendment 56 is supported by UCU. It states that the training for governing boards must include

“financial oversight ... financial risk ... their legal responsibilities as members of the governing body ... their responsibilities in relation to the constructive challenge and scrutiny of senior leadership of the higher education institution”

and

“whistleblowing procedures.”

It also says that the Scottish Funding Council must provide guidance on the training and the body must confirm that that has happened.

Amendment 64 provides that a fundable body must have in place a whistleblowing procedure that is clearly communicated to all staff, students and members of the governing body of the fundable body; provides for the confidential reporting of concerns relating to issues, including but not limited to financial mismanagement, failure of governance, bullying or retaliation, and risks to learner provision; and provides protection against detriment to individuals who raise concerns in good faith. It states that a fundable body must notify the council when it receives information through the whistleblowing procedure and, on receipt of it, the council must consider whether any action or support is required as a result of the notification.

Amendment 65 seeks to put the known principles of public life on the face of the bill and would require boards to act accordingly to secure funding.

Amendment 66 seeks to impose a condition that, before implementing any decision that could significantly impact provision for learners, levels of staffing or financial sustainability, the council

“must, when making a payment to a fundable body”

require that it takes

“reasonable steps to inform and consult ... recognised trade unions ... organisations representing students of the body”

and

“any external partners.“

It also requires the board to report the engagement to the SFC.

Good morning. I associate myself with Willie Rennie’s comments and congratulate the convener on his award last week.

Amendment 38, in my name, would require the preparation of a national skills and apprenticeship funding strategy that set out

“the Scottish Ministers’ priorities for funding national training and apprenticeship programmes with a view to meeting medium and long-term skills needs ... how school-phase pathways, including foundation apprenticeships and senior phase technical routes, are reflected in the priorities ... the intended roles of the bodies to be involved in delivering the priorities”

and

“how the Scottish Ministers intend to measure success in delivering the priorities.”

The amendment sets out that the Scottish ministers must consult employers, trade unions, employers who are subject to the apprenticeship levy, schools, colleges and universities.

Amendment 38 is intended to bring much-needed coherence to the landscape. As we heard from many stakeholders who gave evidence on the bill, there must be a far more strategic focus on skills in Scotland, with connections between industry, school and the education system all the way through someone’s development, from cradle to career.

Amendment 39 would require ministers to publish a report that set out how the strategy was meeting the skills needs in industry and in the public sector, so that we can be confident that we will not have more years with skills gaps in key industries. Recently, we have heard that, as a result of skills gaps, we have had to import skills from other countries. That is regrettable, so we should ensure that we have proper plans not just for construction, plumbing and welding, for example, but for the public sector, where we have significant skills gaps, including in the teaching and health workforces.

Taken together, those two amendments would provide much-needed coherence to the skills and education landscape. I commend them to the committee and hope that they can meet with support from members.

Amendment 207 is a consequential amendment that commences amendments 38 and 39.

I move amendment 38.

Will the minister give way?

I hope that the minister will forgive me if I have misunderstood the wording of his amendment 4. Can you explain why the wording

“in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the person”.

would be removed from the bill? Would that have implications for people who are relocating as a result of a skills gap? How would that affect what we are doing to encourage people, such as teachers, to move to rural areas? Have I completely misunderstood the Government’s intention with that amendment?