Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for laying that out. For clarity, is she suggesting that there is a way to legislate to make existing processes and schemes more consistent across the country? For example, could we work together on lodging an amendment at stage 3, or is she suggesting that we should try to improve the current non-legislative approach and that she will attempt to reassure us that there is an adequate non-legislative solution to that ahead of stage 3?

I am confused about the point about consistency. Local government is not just another set of public bodies; they are 32 governments, and that level of government has been given responsibility for the landlord register. The argument about its being helpful to have consistency across the country somewhat flies in the face of the fact that councils can set their own rate of council tax. Indeed, the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024, which we have just passed in this Parliament, allows them to set their own rate for that levy, and the point that was made in relation to a cruise ship levy is also about local authorities being able to set a rate that is relevant to them.

There is a whole range of other measures whereby local authorities can set a rate—whether for fees, charges, taxes or so on—that suits their local context. I am struggling to see how the Government’s position can be reconciled with the Verity house agreement that this Government signed.

I understand entirely the cabinet secretary’s position, although I suggest that the Scottish Government often takes a risk-averse approach to the extreme in A1P1 cases. I am happy not to press the amendments, if the Government can commit to some kind of consideration and review of whether there is justification for expanding the provisions of the 2012 act to those whose leases were not covered at the time—those whose lease was more than a century at the time and is over 50 years at this point. Does the Government have any interest in considering the situation of those who were missed by the 2012 act, or is that not an area that it wishes to explore?

I have one final question for all of you. It touches in particular on Carolyn Currie’s earlier point about women-led businesses consistently not being engaged or not getting the same level of engagement.

Having defined roles on the apprenticeship committee provides a space for employers. Over the years, leading up to the current situation, I have picked up from feedback a feeling that, while some employers, trade bodies and so on in certain sectors do very well out of the current system and feel very well represented and that their voice is heard, other folk feel—whether it is because of the nature of their sector or the demographics of the business owners—that they cannot even get their foot in the door. Vikki Manson touched on that a little in talking about where the skills gaps are.

How do we build a structure to make sure that the system is hearing the voices of the people who cannot, as it stands, get their foot in the door; who are not happy with the current system; and whose feedback has, in many ways, led to the introduction of the bill before us?

I would like to return mostly to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s earlier question and a couple of interesting points made in the written submissions.

I will start with Nicola Jackson’s submission, if that is okay. I recognise that this relates to a different section of the union from yours, Nicola, but Unison has made a point similar to the one that I put to the colleges and university management last week with regard to the concern that clawback is a pretty blunt tool. Very often, if an institution is in a position where the SFC is considering clawing money back, taking more money off it will probably make the problem worse. Does Unison have any proposals for alternative enforcement mechanisms that would not only provide the appropriate level of scrutiny but improve the situations in which institutions find themselves instead of, in the worst-case scenario, taking money away from them and more people losing their jobs as a result?

Absolutely. Thank you.

Sarah Collins, you mentioned the view of the EIS Further Education Lecturers Association—or EIS-FELA—that the SFC has existing powers, but it does not use them. Are you talking primarily about the clawback of finances, or are there other powers that the SFC is currently not exercising, or not exercising sufficiently?

If it is your position that, although it could have more powers, the SFC already has a sufficient level of power in this area that it is not using, am I paraphrasing the EIS correctly in saying that, from your perspective, there would be more benefit in putting more duties on the SFC to exercise these powers than giving it more powers without any duty to exercise them?

Your submission makes an important point about the duty on the institutions to “have regard to” the SFC’s guidance perhaps not being strong enough, as they can just have regard to it without having to follow through on it, and there appears to be no clear recourse if that is what transpires.

Do you have any alternative proposals? How much further than having regard to the guidance would it be appropriate to go? Your ULA section, the EIS University Lecturers Association, makes the point that reclassification is certainly a balancing act for universities, while colleges have a bit more flexibility. How far would you like the bill to go with the duty on the institutions to do what the SFC tells them?

Thank you very much.

I apologise to the witnesses now, as I need to head off to another appointment before the end of the meeting.

I come to Vikki Manson first. You spoke about the absence of the word “employer” in the bill, which was interesting, and you highlighted the apprenticeship committee as a specific example of where the employer voice can be heard. That is useful—parliamentary committees are always keen for witnesses to make specific proposals for how a bill can be improved.

Do you have any other proposals for how we can make sure that the voice of employers, industry or business—however we are phrasing it—is heard? That could involve amendments to the bill, or changes that could be made as part of the transition process rather than in primary legislation, to ensure that the employer voice is mainstreamed through the system.