Seòmar agus comataidhean

Although amendment 91 sits in this group, it is very much connected to the debates that we have now quite thoroughly rehearsed in relation to reserved areas versus areas where we can stretch devolution, conditionality and so on. I will briefly summarise amendment 91, but, unlike previously, I will not go into it in depth, because we have rehearsed a lot of the underlying arguments.

Amendment 91 provides that

“Ministers must by regulations specify the minimum rate of pay”

for a Scottish apprentice. Such regulations would be subject to the negative procedure. Amendment 91A builds on that by specifying that the rate of pay must not be less than the national minimum wage.

I lodged the amendments because although I think that we all recognise the value of apprenticeships as a fantastic way to kick-start careers, apprentices are vastly underpaid a lot of the time, meaning that many people cannot afford to go down the apprenticeship path, even if they want to. The purpose of amendment 91A is to align the minimum wage payable to apprentices through the funding provided by the Scottish Government and the SFC with the wider national minimum wage.

At the end of June, there were just under 12,000 modern apprentices in Scotland in their first year of training, and about 6,000 of them were 19 or over. If amendments 91, 91A and 93 were to be agreed to, those apprentices, and every subsequent first-year apprentice, would be entitled to receive the minimum wage for their relevant age groups. For the 6,000 first-year apprentices this year, that would be a pay uplift of just under 50 per cent. Bringing apprenticeship wages in line with the existing national minimum wage would end what I think many of us see as the injustice that means that apprentices are paid less than the minimum wage of other workers of the same age, despite the fact that apprentices’ bills and other expenses are not less than anyone else’s.

Amendment 93 is consequential. It would remove Scottish apprentices from the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015. Even under devolution, we are able to make variances, as is evident in the fact that Scottish apprentices are currently included in the 2015 regulations. Amendment 93 would specify that the relevant regulation

“does not apply to Scottish apprenticeships as defined by section 12E of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005”,

which section 4 of the bill inserts.

I have already rehearsed why I think that it is possible to get into the area of conditionality in relation to wages. We have already had that argument with the Government. I understand the Government’s position, but I am disappointed by its lack of willingness to test the limits of legislative competence or to use non-legislative policy-setting powers in order to raise standards in the sector.

At this stage, I will not move my amendments, but I am keen to engage with the minister ahead of stage 3, especially on the issues that we have discussed with Pam Duncan-Glancy and the need for the Government to provide a clear statement before stage 3 on its wider approach to fair work in the sector and what other levers it intends to use to turn its policy aspirations into reality. The lack of action on the part of the Government in relation to the use of non-legislative mechanisms is why so many of the amendments in this group have been lodged.

I very much agree with amendment 66 in principle. It is very similar to amendments that Pam Duncan-Glancy and I have lodged to previous bills. However, I wonder about its operability and whether it is flexible enough.

I am thinking of a scenario that a number of institutions have faced recently, when they had to close entire buildings on a moment’s notice due to the presence of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Obviously, that had a significant impact on the ability to provide for learners, but it would not have been appropriate to require them to inform trade unions, student bodies and so on beforehand, because they had to act the moment that they became aware of the issue. Does the member think that her amendment is flexible enough to take into account such situations?

That is the point that I struggle with. I hope that the minister can correct me, but I do not see any difference between what is in his amendment 12 and the power that SDS already has and simply has not been using. It is within SDS’s powers now to effectively cap the amount that managing agents take, and it has just not done that. We are moving responsibility from one body to another, but I am not clear how Parliament can have confidence that that will result in effective caps being set and good use of public money.

If the minister is amenable to working with me further on the issue, I will not move amendment 51, but I have not yet heard a case for why Parliament should be confident that his amendment 12 will result in a change of practice. We are shifting the power from one organisation to another, but there is no substantive change in what is expected of the body. Amendment 12 is very vague, as it talks about what would be a “reasonable” charge and so on.

As I said, I am happy not to move amendment 51, if the minister is happy to work with me ahead of stage 3 to consider whether ultimate responsibility for setting a cap could sit with ministers.

I take his point that, if his amendment 12 is agreed to, the SFC would be bound by law to do something that SDS is not currently bound by law to do. However, my question is about what it will be bound by law to do. The wording of the minister’s amendment is vague, and I am not convinced that it would result in substantive change in practice.

Will the minister take another intervention?

I appreciate that, and I appreciate how long we are taking on the issue. With respect, I do not understand that answer. As I understand it, college principals in Scotland are not unionised, so it is not a matter of union engagement being required. In relation to matters such as payment of the real living wage, as John Mason pointed out and as I said earlier, we have conditioned those elsewhere.

The minister’s argument seems to be that he still needs time to consider the issue. I mean no offence by this, but has the Government come to committee today without having considered it? I appreciate that the time between the deadline for lodging amendments and the first day of stage 2 is quite narrow, but I have been raising the matter of applying the chief executive pay framework to college principals with the Scottish Government for a number of years now, so I am a bit surprised that the Government does not have a clear answer as to what its position is on the issue and the legality of it.

Amendment 86 is straightforward. It specifies that, before amending or revoking an apprenticeship framework, the council may consult with such persons as it considers appropriate and that it must publish the reasons for the amendment or revocation of a framework as soon as is reasonably practicable afterwards. As has been mentioned, it is similar to the minister’s amendments 6 and 7 and Willie Rennie’s amendment 29.

I would be happy not to move amendment 86 and to support the other amendments if the minister were amenable to revisiting the issue at stage 3. What is specifically missing from his proposal—and which is included in mine, and which I would welcome as an amendment at stage 3—is the requirement for the council to publish its reasons for changes or revocations. I do not think that that is a cumbersome requirement to put on the council; I think that, particularly when a framework is fully revoked, it is reasonable to expect the council simply to lay out its reasons for doing so. If the minister is amenable to working on that ahead of stage 3, I am happy not to press amendment 86.

Amendment 87 seeks to add in that, when ministers make further provisions in relation to the process that the council should follow when it is preparing, publishing, amending, revoking the frameworks and so on, they ensure that details on consultation carried out with apprentices and those who represent them are included. The amendment is somewhat similar to Willie Rennie’s amendment 29, which is about consultation with employers, in seeking to specify how that process should be carried out.

I was not clear from the minister’s opening remarks what the Government’s position is in relation to amendment 87, and I wonder whether he will clarify it, as well as the Government’s position on amendment 86 and potentially working up a stage 3 amendment on compelling the council to publish its reasons for any changes that it makes. I would be happy not to press amendment 87 if, as with amendment 86, we could work together towards stage 3 amendments, but I am not sure whether the minister was indicating that in relation to amendment 87.

I sympathise with why you are keen to see a clearer definition of foundation apprenticeships. I take on board that foundation apprenticeships are almost not apprenticeships, as we have just discussed in relation to Willie Rennie’s amendments, but I wonder whether you share my concern that defining one particular apprenticeship would make it challenging in future if we were to undertake any reforms of the system. If we decide in a couple of years’ time, once the bill is enacted, that we want to make substantial changes, even if it were to do something like renaming foundation apprenticeships—I do not think that they should be called that because the term “foundation” is unhelpful and harks back to the era of standard grades—we would need to introduce more primary legislation to do so.

Do you recognise that concern? Could we perhaps include a ministerial regulation-making power that would ensure that we do not need to go through the primary legislative process again if we need to make even minor adaptations to the system at some point in the future?

Would the minister take one brief further intervention?

I appreciate that, minister.

To clarify, is the Government’s objection to amendment 69 a matter of drafting, or does the Government object to the policy objective in relation to recognition of unions?