Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hear what the minister has had to say this morning. Given the situation at Dundee that is running parallel to the bill’s progression through Parliament, the issue of transparency has been very much on all of our minds. Maggie Chapman’s amendments touch on that issue, too. Further to the minister’s comments on ONS classification, I hope that he will reflect on where the Government has scope to introduce additional transparency measures at stage 3. I think that all of the committee members have been reaching towards that objective.

On my amendment 63, which is about the provision of student mental health and wellbeing support services, the bill might not be the right vehicle to take that forward but, nonetheless, I think that ministers and the committee want progress to be made on the issue. There is significant variation in that provision across the country, which is sometimes down to differences in organisational capacity and size. Some of Ross Greer’s amendments are about the support that could be given to the student body to provide those services.

I hope that the minister will consider those issues, as well as the issue in my colleague Pam Gosal’s amendment 3. If they are not dealt with in the bill, I want to know what commitment the Government will make to ensuring progress on those important issues.

Amendment 50, by agreement, withdrawn.

As Ross Greer has outlined, there is a bit of an overlap between many of the amendments in the group. My amendment 70 seeks to ensure parity between the conditions that will apply to those receiving grants for the purpose of the delivery of programmes of training for employment and those conditions regarding repayment that are imposed on fundable bodies and regional strategic bodies by sections 12A and 12B of the 2005 act.

As I said earlier, it is vital to ensure that public money is not given without the ability to seek repayment and, where appropriate, interest. As has been touched on, the Government already has a number of policies in place relating to the fair work first criteria but, under my amendment 74, the requirement to comply with those criteria would be included in the terms and conditions that are imposed, given the links to Government policy in this regard.

I will be moving amendment 70.

To complete the love-in, I, too, congratulate you on your award, convener.

I will also be speaking to Stephen Kerr’s amendments in this group, because he cannot join us today. My amendment 40 goes to the heart of the proposal to remove the duty to secure the provision of Scottish apprenticeships and work-based learning from Skills Development Scotland and place it with the Scottish Funding Council. Organisations such as the EIS do not believe that the SFC should have the duty to secure the provision of Scottish apprenticeships and work-based learning, on the basis that it might dilute the administrative and oversight functions, with one organisation being stretched too thin. My amendment would therefore provide for the status quo to be retained, and my solution, which I have discussed with the minister, would be for the next Parliament to look towards having a skills, training and colleges bill to tidy up some of the concerns that the committee highlighted in our report earlier in the session.

Amendments 41, 42, 44 and 45 relate to the alignment of the bill with national priorities and career pathways, as well as regional skills shortages, as Pam Duncan-Glancy mentioned.

I welcome amendment 1 from the minister, which is an amendment that I, too, was considering lodging.

Amendments 43 and 46 are in the name of my colleague Stephen Kerr. The general duties placed on ministers in section 2 set the tone for the entire bill. If those duties lack clarity or force, everything that follows in the legislation rests on an uncertain foundation. The amendments in Stephen Kerr’s name are designed to correct that weakness and ensure that the duties of ministers are aligned with the practical realities of Scotland’s economic and skills challenges.

I know from conversations that the member is open to the drafting of amendments. It is more about ensuring that the foundations of the bill look across sectors. The member has given me flexibility to move or not move the amendments so that we get this right as we go forward.

Turning to amendment 43, I note that the argument is simple but crucial. Scotland invests millions of pounds every year in tertiary education and our skills system, yet the bill contains no explicit requirement for ministers to demonstrate that that expenditure leads to improved outcomes. It does not require ministers to demonstrate improvements in the skills of the workforce, productivity or the achievements of learning. Without that requirement, there is a risk that we create a structure in which money continues to be spent without any meaningful connection to the economic needs of our country.

Scotland faces a number of serious and well-documented productivity challenges. Employers repeatedly identify skills shortages with every committee member as one of the principal barriers to growth in our economy. If the bill does not oblige ministers to consider whether their decisions are improving the situation, we risk entrenching an accountability gap at the very heart of the system.

Amendment 43 would ensure that the public investment must be tied to measurable improvements. It would require ministers to reflect on outcomes, not simply intentions, and to consider the impact of their decisions on productivity and the skills that Scotland needs for the future. The amendment introduces the discipline and transparency that should be expected in any modern skills system, which the bill currently lacks.

Amendment 46 naturally follows from that logic. If we are to transfer significant responsibilities to the Funding Council, including responsibilities for apprenticeships, national training programmes, work-based learning, and the wider landscape of post-school provision, the Parliament must be able to assess at regular intervals whether those responsibilities are being carried out effectively. The bill currently provides no structured mechanism for independent valuation of a council’s performance. That omission leaves the Parliament dependent on ministerial assurances, rather than objective evidence. Amendment 46 seeks to address the gap by requiring an independent evaluation of the council every three years, with a report laid before the Parliament. That is not an undue burden, but it is a reasonable expectation when the council is being asked to steward such a large portion of Scotland’s skills system. Independent evaluation would prevent complacency, protect learners and employers, and ensure that the system adapts to Scotland’s economic needs as they change. It would also provide the Parliament with a reliable basis on which to judge the success of the reforms over a period of time. If the Government believes that the bill will improve Scotland’s skills landscape, it should have no hesitation in welcoming the scrutiny that the amendment would provide for.

The amendments reflect Stephen Kerr’s consistent argument that Scotland needs a tertiary system that is grounded in evidence, focused on outcomes, and transparent in its operation. Amendment 43 would ensure that ministerial decisions must contribute meaningfully to the skills and productivity that Scotland’s economy requires. Amendment 46 would ensure that the council’s performance will be judged independently and openly, rather than being left to assumptions. Together, I believe that they strengthen the bill, strengthen accountability and strengthen the prospects of delivering a skills system that is worthy of Scotland’s workforce. Therefore, I invite colleagues to support amendments 43 and 46, as well as amendments 40 to 42, 44 and 45, in my name.

In light of what the minister has said, I will not move amendment 44.

Amendments 44 and 45 not moved.

I hear what the minister says, but a lot of employers have become very much used to those terms. They understand what an apprentice is. In fact, some of the asks that have been made involve the potential to develop a degree apprenticeship, rather than removing the existing terminology. Has the Government reflected on that? I am worried that the terms might get lost in translation if the Government does not look towards what is now a set of defined apprenticeship terms—“foundation”, “modern” and “graduate”—along with an aspiration for a degree apprenticeship to be developed in the future.

Further to the minister’s commitment to consider the issue further, I seek to withdraw amendment 50.

I welcome Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 48 and very much endorse what she has just said. Many of us hoped that the bill would set out a real vision for the college sector and would be an opportunity to realise colleges’ potential. On Monday, I visited Dundee and Angus College. I believe that Willie Rennie was there the week before; it turns out that he makes a better sparky than I do, from what I was told.

It is important that we consider how to realise the potential of our college sector, especially with regard to the resources that they can potentially access. That is why I welcome Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment.

Amendment 50, which relates to fair work first principles, is one of a set of amendments on terms and conditions for apprenticeships and apprentices, and it seeks to ensure parity between the conditions that will apply to those receiving grants for the purpose of the delivery of programmes of training for employment and those imposed on fundable bodies and regional strategic bodies in terms of repayment under sections 12A and 12B of the 2005 act. It is vital that, in the outlay of public money, there is clarity on the actions that will be taken if the provider fails to comply with the terms and conditions imposed, and on the requirement for the provider to be compliant with fair work first criteria, given the links to the Scottish Government policy in that regard.

Amendment 63 is a probing amendment that relates to the provision of student mental health and wellbeing support services for our young people. On my visit to Dundee and Angus College on Monday, I met representatives from the student association and heard about the support services that they are working to provide to students. Funding provided by Scottish ministers in support of mental health and wellbeing services has come to an end in recent years, and in many cases, colleges and other training providers have had to find the resources to keep such services going. I believe that the bill presents an opportunity for us to correct that situation and for ministers to create a common national framework that will put mental health and wellbeing support services in place at the heart of our institutions in order to support students.

I am also very supportive of a number of amendments in the name of Ross Greer that, in general, seek to support the student body in delivering those kinds of support services. I look forward to hearing more about them.

For now, I move amendment 50.

I respect the principles that lie behind Mr Greer’s amendments. An issue that has been consistently raised is that of transport costs for students. I am sure that Mr Greer will mention the free bus pass when he responds to me, but that is not an option for many students in rural Scotland. On Monday, I met a student who spends £120 a week travelling from rural Perthshire to do her course in Dundee.

I take on board what Mr Greer is trying to do, but there seems to be a wider issue to do with the package of support that is available for students—especially students from rural communities—to access training.