Chamber and committees

I clarify that the SFC will be ready from 1 April 2027. The points that Pam Duncan-Glancy referenced with regard to 2029 relate to the new information technology system. I do not want to make any further comments on her amendments. I know that Pam Duncan-Glancy, like me, wants to make the skills system as good as possible. I look forward to hearing more on her amendments.

My amendments 19 to 22 all make minor technical amendments to the bill’s provision on the designation process for private providers of further and higher education.

The bill will enable regulations to be introduced that will set out in detail the process for applying to become a designated private provider, as well as, through the amendments, the process for the approval of particular courses of education offered by those providers. That will ensure effective oversight of the courses that are to attract public funding. I therefore cannot support Miles Briggs’s amendment 203, which seeks to remove from the bill the power to designate private providers, meaning that students and education providers would be unable to benefit from the transparency offered by the new process that will be set out in regulations.

It is possible that amendment 203 is motivated by a misunderstanding about the privatisation of tertiary education. Some stakeholders have misunderstood part 3 of the bill as allowing private providers to be funded in the same way as fundable bodies. That is not the case. Several students already undertake further and higher education courses that are run by education providers that are not post-16 bodies under the 2005 act, because those providers have historically offered a type of provision that was not commonly delivered by publicly funded colleges or universities—mainly in creative courses such as dance, musical theatre and drama. Therefore, there are good reasons why private providers exist in the sector, and the purpose of part 3 of the bill is to make the process for supporting students at those providers more transparent. [Ben Macpherson has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]

Although I support the intention behind amendments 204 and 205, both of them raise operational difficulties and risk placing a very high administrative burden on colleges, which we would want to avoid. I would like to consider further what can be done by amendment at stage 3 in relation to reporting more generally. I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for lodging the amendments and would be happy to hear more from her to help inform our thinking, but I invite her not to move them at this time. If she does, I ask members to vote against them. Likewise, I urge members to vote against Miles Briggs’s amendment 203 but to vote for my amendments 19 and 22.

I move amendment 19.

I give an undertaking in good faith that I am pleased to engage on those points, on the amendments and on their themes ahead of stage 3, and I therefore ask members to vote for amendments 6 to 8, in my name.

Moving on to Willie Rennie’s amendment 29, I listened carefully to the points that he made in response to my opening remarks, and I want to engage further with him on those matters ahead of stage 3. I must emphasise the comments that were made during the debate on an earlier group: we must ensure that we have the necessary input and expertise from the business community and industry, and consider together whether there is a need for further independence. I am happy to engage further with Willie Rennie on the points raised in amendment 29, if he does not move it today. If he does, I encourage members to vote against it at this juncture.

I ask the same with regard to Ross Greer’s amendment 86. As I have stated, I would be grateful if Ross Greer did not move amendment 87, so that we can consider the issue together further, but if he does move it, I encourage members to vote against it. The same applies to Monica Lennon’s amendment 88 and Stephen Kerr’s amendments 89 and 90.

As I have said, I cannot support Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 84, nor Stephen Kerr’s amendment 85, and I encourage members to vote against both.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Amendment 84 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

My understanding is that it is about the cumulative effect and the risk of it creating difficulty for the Government and the independence of the institutions. I am clear that there would be a risk of reclassification if amendment 63 was passed but I take members’ points. I want to make some progress, but I am happy to have further engagement with the committee on the points that members have raised, because they relate to the amendments that I am still to speak to.

I turn to Ross Greer’s amendments 51, 54, 55 and 62. As he said, I prefer amendment 12 in group 8 to amendment 51. It addresses the same issues while leaving discretionary power to determine appropriate levels of payment to the SFC. For context, in England, the cap is in conditions of funding, not legislation, and it is flexible. I hope that is helpful context.

I am certainly happy, as always, to have more engagement with Ross Greer. On the points that have been made about SDS, it is not bound by law, but the SFC will be and will be answerable—that is the difference. As with several amendments in the group, we need to be cognisant of the employment law reservation. However, I am happy to have further engagement.

Briefly, yes.

As I said, I would be more than happy to have further engagement on that with Mr Greer and the committee. I again emphasise the employment law reservation, which we have to consider in thinking about contracting.

Convener, I, too, want to congratulate you, and the committee more widely, on your award.

I also want to thank all the members and stakeholders who engaged with me on the bill between stages 1 and 2. The substantial and constructive engagement that we have had has been, I think, to the benefit of all.

I will speak to all the amendments in this group together, noting that amendment 207, as Pam Duncan-Glancy has mentioned, is consequential. I appreciate why the member has lodged them. It is desirable to have a clear picture that all can understand and which allows everyone to see their roles and responsibilities and where the opportunities might sit with regard to having national direction of skills planning. That is what the bill and the wider reforms of the skills landscape that we are introducing seek to do.

The Scottish Government is committed to leading skills planning nationally while strengthening regional approaches. We have agreed a high-level model for planning that sets out intended roles for the Scottish Government, the Scottish Funding Council and Skills Development Scotland, consistent with the objectives of the proposed amendment.

I am happy to consider what we might be able to publish ahead of stage 3, but I also want to put on the record the Government’s commitment to transparency, collaboration and delivering a system that meets Scotland’s strategic skills needs. I am also happy to take on board many of the aims that are set out in Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments in our approach, not least on consultation. It is, of course, the norm for the Scottish Government to consult and engage with key stakeholders in the development of policy, and I do not intend to deviate from that in our approach.

However, it would be inappropriate to tie future Governments to a policy approach by making it statutory. There are also some issues with the drafting of the amendments. For example, elsewhere in the bill, provision is made for “work-based learning”, which includes but is not confined to foundation apprenticeships.

For all those reasons, I cannot support amendments 38, 39 or 207, and I ask Pam Duncan-Glancy not to press amendment 38 or move the others in the group and allow me, my officials and the Government more widely to consider what more information on our national skills planning approach I can provide to Parliament ahead of stage 3.

I would be grateful if Pam Duncan-Glancy could provide a bit more context for that question.

We have paid careful attention to trade unions throughout the process. As I said, amendment 69 is not competently drafted. We could consider the matters that it raises in relation to trade unions further ahead of stage 3 but, at the moment, I urge the committee not to back amendment 69—indeed, I urge Ross Greer not to move it.

I thank Miles Briggs for setting out the rationale behind his amendments. However, the intention and wording of amendment 70 are unclear. If he is suggesting that we should have a provision that effectively allows grant funding to be passed directly to employers rather than staying within the SFC’s direct oversight, I am sure that he can see how that might prove challenging if universally applied. That sort of national training programme might be a good idea in some circumstances, but I am unsure whether such a provision is necessary, and I do not consider the wording to give the intended effect. However, I am happy to consider the matter further ahead of stage 3, if the member is minded to do that.

I am pleased to support amendment 71, in the name of Ross Greer, and amendment 72, in the name of Miles Briggs. Amendment 71 will bring transparency to the terms and conditions that are set by the Scottish ministers when providing grant funding to the SFC. Amendment 72 implicitly emphasises the importance of compliance and results in return for public money by setting out how the SFC could impose repayment conditions.

Although I have no issue with the spirit of Daniel Johnson’s amendment 73, it is problematic on several fronts. The term “transparent on spend” is not defined, and we would not want a grant recipient to need to publish details of all their expenditure. That could be unnecessarily bureaucratic and sensitive in respect of certain matters such as staff salaries and subcontracting.

More importantly, by requiring the SFC to impose a condition that the person “adopts fair work practices” in all circumstances, regardless of the nature of the business, amendment 73 would have the effect of mandating employment terms and conditions. Unfortunately, that is strictly outwith the competence of the Parliament. As there is an employment law reservation, the amendment should not be supported.

Miles Briggs’s amendment 74 is in similar terms. Although the provision is not framed as an essential grant condition, the amendment is unnecessary, as the bill already gives the SFC a broad power to make grants subject to such terms and conditions as it considers appropriate to impose. It is for the SFC to decide what grant condition may or may not be appropriate, depending on the nature of the training programme and the grant recipient. I appreciate the desire for legislation to expressly allow for the SFC to impose a condition in this space, and I am happy to look at that further to ensure that we have a provision that is workable and within legislative competence. I commit to doing so at stage 3 and therefore ask Miles Briggs not to move amendment 74.

Likewise, Ross Greer’s amendment 75 would make a provision that would be more appropriately placed in the contract or offer of grant that is made to the person providing the national training programme. In addition, the purpose of the provision appears to be to penalise financially employers who do not adhere to fair work principles. That therefore relates to the reserved matter of employment rights and is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament I therefore ask Mr Greer not to move amendment 75 and, if he does, I urge members to vote against it.

I will be moving amendment 4 and will ask members to support it. I hope that members will also support amendments 71 and 72. As stated, I cannot support amendment 70 as it is currently drafted and I ask Miles Briggs not to move it, as that will allow me to consider the matter further ahead of stage 3. If he does move it, I encourage members to vote against it.