Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is obviously nervousness about Office for National Statistics classification for the universities, and I notice that the member has not drawn any distinction between the rules that he would like to apply to colleges and universities. Has he sought advice about the consequences of the proposals in his amendments for the university sector with regard to ONS classification?

I am not in favour of duplication. If the committee could have a more independent status, so that employers felt that they owned it, rather than being chosen to come on to it, that would address some of the concerns. If we can get to a stage at which we can have a discussion about improving that independent status and the ownership of the employers and industry, we might be able to address those concerns. However, I am not in favour of having two structures. That would be pointless and competitive.

The model is adopted in many other countries, such as Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Canada, Korea and the United States, although I am not sure whether that is a recommendation. It is the accepted standard, partly because it reflects what is in amendment 25 about having a general duty to make sure that the system is tied in with economic need. If we have that in tandem with a body that employers see as their body and which has an oversight role, we can make sure that the reforms work together as a package.

As always, I am reasonable. I am prepared to discuss all that, and I think that Daniel Johnson’s amendments are worthy of consideration.

That is my main argument, and I hope to receive the minister’s response in his summing up.

The key element that Ross Greer, Pam Duncan-Glancy and I debated was the independent status of the body. Having a sub-committee does not sound as substantial as having a fully flourishing board with a degree of independence. Will the minister look at how the appointments process works, as that applies to all committees or arrangements, to ensure that industry and employers feel that they are not just the chosen few but are representative of the wider sector and that they have a degree of independence so as to provide the necessary challenge in the system? Can we look at that before stage 3 and strengthen that independent status? Is that something that you would consider doing?

I will support the minister’s amendments on this area, as they assist the partnership approach with employers, business, industry and others.

I am, though, proposing that we go further. The consultation that I am proposing seeks to address the concern of many employers that transferring responsibility from SDS, which has a close relationship with many employers, to the SFC, whose arrangements have traditionally been with universities and colleges, requires a more robust consultation element. It might be a bit more cumbersome and challenging process, but it is necessary to ensure that we have a partnership approach, and that employers understand that it is a partnership; that we have a degree of co-design; and that we are intent on strengthening the relationship for the longer term, not just the period following this discussion and debate.

That is why I propose that we go a bit further—not an awful lot further, because the minister’s approach includes aspects of consultation, too. However, we should embed that consultation as an important part of rebuilding the relationship with employers.

My anxiety in the area is about defining in a bill something that I am not sure can be absolutely defined. Also, from further evidence that I have heard, I think that the situation is not as clear as was sometimes presented to the committee. I would rather that the power lay with the Scottish Funding Council, with a clear message from the committee and the Government that we need to get on top of the issue to fully understand it and to ensure that we have policy that complies with that.

I think that the minister’s proposal is different enough from what we have now, which is why I will support the minister’s amendment rather than Mr Greer’s.

Convener, before we proceed, I am sure that other members of the committee would like to join me in congratulating you on your award last week. Personally, I think that it was the nominations from George Adam and me that got you over the line, but whatever—we sincerely congratulate you on your award.

Foundation apprenticeships are catered for separately in the group of amendments on work-based learning rather than the group on apprenticeships, so amendment 26 would not affect them. However, it is important for the other apprenticeships to have that employment status embedded in them.

Moreover, rather than just receiving training or completing the course, apprentices would have to achieve competence, which would reinforce the integrity of the apprenticeship model and ensure that the perceived standard of the apprenticeship was maintained.

There is a reference in amendment 28 to the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Scottish Government’s fair work first policy, which is an integral part of the employment status that is proposed in the amendments.

I have a couple of amendments in the group, amendments 24 and 25. I am pleased that the minister is supporting amendment 25 to try to achieve a whole-system approach and ensure that the system is connected to the wider economy. We know that there is a gap between the demand and the supply. We should be trying to close the gap and ensure that the shape of the offer meets industry and employers’ needs. It is great that the minister is supporting amendment 25.

However, amendment 24 is the crunchy one. It seeks to reintroduce an industry-led body that is equivalent to what we have now, the Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board. The amendment seeks to address some of the anxieties that exist among not all, but quite a lot, of employers, who feel that the bill is unnecessary, that it is a distraction and, more importantly, that it will lead to a dilution of the voice of employers. I appreciate that a committee will be set up as part of the Funding Council, but I think that having an industry-led body with an independent status that has an oversight role for the decisions that would be made by the Funding Council and the rest of the system would address some of the concerns. I urge the minister to support amendment 24. It is part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s recommendations that there should be a statutory framework that enables employer-led oversight.

I understand the minister’s explanation, and I am grateful to him for providing such a detailed explanation.

I understand the desire to have flexibility in the definitions, but the bill gives us a rare opportunity to influence the shape of apprenticeships as a whole. There is concern among some that the exemptions that that flexibility permits would dilute the value and credibility of apprenticeships. I fully accept the rather strange situation that applies in relation to, for example, the clergy, and I understand the wider principle of being able to have such flexibility, but I hope that the minister will express a desire—perhaps in an intervention—for there to be only a very small group of exceptions and for the bulk of apprentices to be directly employed in the traditional way.

The minister made no reference to the concern about block release and programme-led learning. There is a concern among some employers that large block-release apprenticeship models remove individuals from the workplace for long periods of time. That disrupts their interaction with other employees and it disrupts the system, which means that they lose the value of such engagement. In addition, employers have difficulty in filling those spaces for such protracted periods.

I wonder whether the minister would like to intervene on that point.