Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree, and I think that the member is trying to do the right thing, in principle. However, I worry that “sufficient” and “adequate” are subjective terms, so I wonder whether something could be done ahead of stage 3 to make the proposal a bit clearer so that we can achieve the aim without the subjectivity that is indicated in amendment 61C.

I wanted to intervene to apologise for getting the amendment number wrong. The minister is of course correct—it is amendment 5, and not amendment 6, which is in the next group. I think that I have a similar concern with amendment 6, but we can come to that.

I take the point about proposed new paragraph (e) and the wording

“such other persons as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate”,

but what would happen in a situation in which the minister did not consider that it was appropriate to consult apprentices or trade unions? Will the minister set out why he considers it appropriate to name the SFC, employers, education bodies and training providers in legislation, but not apprentices or trade unions?

I am supportive of amendment 25 and amendment 24 would support the creation of an industry body. Would the member consider amendment 181 in Daniel Johnson’s name? It is in a much later group, but it stipulates what the role of that body could be, which could address some of the duplication that Ross Greer mentioned. It also sets out that the role would be very specific. That would be our preferred approach. Would Willie Rennie consider that?

I appreciate that, minister, and I am sorry to cut you off in your flow. I was just slightly concerned that you were getting to the end of your comments, so I would not be able to intervene. Forgive me if my intervention means that things do not flow quite so nicely.

In the letter that you sent the committee overnight, you say:

“strategic skills priorities will be published by the Scottish Government in December 2025.”

Could that document include some of the mechanisms that I have set out in my amendment?

Amendment 4 appears to remove the ability to pay a person for accessing particular skills, education or learning. I wonder whether that might lead to concerns about schemes giving people—for example, teachers—incentives to move to particular areas where there are skills shortages. I am looking for clarity about whether amendment 4 would affect that.

I am prepared to give the minister the benefit of the doubt and to work with him on this between now and stage 3. It is important that such a bill sets out clearly the link between education and skills; I think that that is lacking in the bill as drafted, and my amendments could have brought coherence and direction that are not there.

However, I am prepared to discuss the issue with the minister between now and stage 3, and to look at what the minister might publish ahead of stage 3, as was outlined in the letter that came on Monday. Forgive me for saying that it came overnight—today is Wednesday.

I will not press amendment 38.

Amendment 38, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 39 not moved.

Section 1—General duty of the Council to secure high-quality learning

I thank the member for that intervention, but, to be quite honest, it appears that there is never a good time for the Government to look at the funding model for colleges. Every time that that is suggested, it is kicked further and further away down the road. We hear, “Not this time—let’s wait until the next opportunity.” The member suggests that the next opportunity is the budget debate.

A new funding strategy would clearly have budgetary implications, but colleges are nonetheless left in complete limbo. They are now delivering learning to 30,000 fewer students. The cut to staff numbers in colleges is the biggest cut to staff numbers in the public sector in Scotland. Colleges are now in a precarious situation. They are trying their very best, they are delivering incredible education to young people and career switchers across the country, and they have really high satisfaction rates. However, they are doing that without the support of their Government, because their Government is making the situation almost impossible. Audit Scotland and the Scottish Funding Council have both said that, and people across Scotland can see it.

I lodged amendment 48 in an attempt to hold the Government’s feet to the fire and say, “Stop promising that these things will change. Stop promising a different model for funding colleges without delivering it.” I do not think that any of the changes in the bill, such as structural changes and the rejigging of quangos, can address the fundamental concerns about skills gaps across the economy, and across the public sector if the Government does not get to grips with the reality that colleges are facing.

I move amendment 48.

I appreciate that, and I heard that justification earlier, but the amendment specifically says:

“When making a grant ... to a person who is not a Scottish public authority, the Council must impose conditions”.

I appreciate that and also appreciate the convener’s patience as I press this issue ever so slightly further. Having a Government support principles is not the same thing as having it codify them in legislation and require them. I am prepared to take the minister at his word that he might look at other mechanisms by which he could try to encourage, enforce or require those principles. However, what is the minister’s view on the value for money aspect of the amendment and on transparency on spend? Does he think that those things are outwith the competence of the Parliament, or is he prepared in principle to consider an amendment that at least does those things?

I agree whole-heartedly with what the member says. Does he agree that it is important for the Government to take the first opportunity that it can to set out its policy intention on fair work in this space ahead of, or at least around, the stage 3 proceedings for the bill?