Seòmar agus comataidhean

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Amendment 38, by agreement, withdrawn.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?

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?