Claire Baker
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“Motion, as amended, agreed to, That the Parliament condemns xenophobia, racism and hatred in society, including recent instances of intimidation, violence and disorder; further condemns the actions and language of those who seek to stoke such sentiments and division; agrees that such beliefs and actions do not reflect those of the vast ma…”
“The UK Government has updated its planning policy, and there is a clear strategic approach to where data centres are sited, which is what members are calling for in Scotland. On the question around environmental impact assessments, at the moment, it is not mandatory for local authorities to carry out such assessments.”
“The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that motion S7M-00461, in the name of Neil Gray, on the National Security (State Threats) Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. Please cast your votes now. The vote is closed.”
“We need to be clear that climate change is an emergency that affects communities across the world and increasingly here in Scotland. We are seeing more extreme weather events, increased flooding, risks to biodiversity, pressures on food production, and growing risks to public health and infrastructure.”
“The Scottish National Party Government will go even further, putting in place the £2 bus fare cap across the whole of Scotland by the end of this session of Parliament. Climate action is improving the quality of our lives.”
“As I have made clear, collectively across the Parliament, we have agreed that we need to make progress on the targets, which are also legally binding by an agreement made here, and the committees have an important role to play. However, ultimately, the Government has to show leadership on the issue.”
The complete record
Every one of 360 lines we hold for Claire Baker, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 8.
“Shirley-Anne Somerville: One of the reasons that we have taken forward work in the past few years is to give future Governments the ability to change the statutory and legal footing of the Scottish child payment. To ensure that we delivered the Scottish child payment as fast as we did, we based it on the eligibility for universal credit. That link means that, if people fall off UC, they will also fall off the Scottish child payment. Powers have been introduced to ensure that future Governments can look at the legislative footing of the Scottish child payment should a Government wish to change the way in which the Scottish child payment is delivered. Housing Emergency (Fife) 3.”
“As the cabinet secretary recognised, the LSE has carried out a piece of work on the Scottish child payment. Last week, at the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, One Parent Families spoke about the cliff edge of eligibility. It cited the example of a parent who had turned down a promotion at work because it would have meant losing their Scottish child payment. Is the Scottish Government mindful that those kinds of situations can arise, particularly for women? What is being done to support families to make the shift when immediate financial support could be lost but the long-term impact could be an increase in household income?”
“Research carried out for the Women’s Rights Network’s report found that assaults in hospitals were not routinely recorded and that 133 hospitals did not hold data. I hear the minister’s answer, but can he give us assurances that, following that report, he had discussions with the Women’s Rights Network? What work he is doing to implement its specific recommendations? Neil Gray: I have not met the Women’s Rights Network. The report has been debated in the Parliament, Ms Minto met cross-party MSPs in May, and the chief people officer has discussed the report’s findings with NHS Scotland’s human resources directors. We are taking those findings incredibly seriously. I have set out several steps that the Government has taken and the obligations that we expect NHS boards to observe as a result. We will continue to monitor progress on that.”
“Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. [Interruption.] I am not sure why there is all this talking. I am not looking at anyone in particular, Alexander Stewart. We will have a short suspension before we move on to the next item of business. I ask members who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly. 19:56 Meeting suspended. 19:59 On resuming— Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill”
“Amendment 71 agreed to. Amendments 72 and 73 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to. After section 17A Amendments 6 to 8 not moved. Before section 18 Amendment 9 not moved. After section 20 Amendment 113 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to. Long Title Amendment 74 moved—[Ben Macpherson]— and agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That ends consideration of amendments. As members will be aware, the Presiding Officer is required under standing orders to decide whether, in her view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise of Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill, in the Presiding Officer’s view, no provision relates to a protected subject matter.”
“That is important in the context of the bill, because of the deep-seated concerns that exist among the business community and employers, which we have rehearsed this evening, about the value of making the proposed change. It is therefore my hope and desire that amendment 113 will enable the post-legislative scrutiny that should be available for all pieces of legislation. It should not be tokenistic. It should be a meaningful process to make sure that we have got the legislation right and that the apprenticeship landscape is fully and properly integrated with the rest of education and training in Scotland—in other words, that we have the one-stop shop that the minister seeks. I hope that amendment 113 will result in meaningful reviews after one and five years, and a proper review of what we are debating this evening.”
“Without claiming to own a crystal ball, we think that that means that the first review could look at how transition to the new system had worked, while the second review could consider how the structural changes that the bill had put in place were making a difference to the sector in practice. I ask members to support all the amendments in the group. I move amendment 71. Willie Rennie: The minister has made me blush, not because of what he said, but because I have sunk even lower than Stephen Kerr in this debate. Amendment 113 is about post-legislative scrutiny. It seeks to make sure that, if it is passed, the bill as enacted is reviewed after one year or as soon as is reasonable after that period, and again after five years.”
“Amendment 73 will move section 17A to after section 5, which seems a more logical place for it in the order of provisions in the bill, thereby reflecting its clarified scope if amendment 72 is accepted. I am pleased to support Willie Rennie’s amendment 113, which we worked on together. Post-legislative scrutiny is appropriate in principle, and the amendment takes a reasonable and pragmatic approach to that task. Those two words—reasonable and pragmatic—describe Willie Rennie very well, too, if I may say so. I thank him for that. Members: Aw. Ben Macpherson: Amendment 113 would require two reviews and reports to be undertaken. The first would be undertaken one year after commencement of the section and the second would be undertaken after five years. That seems sensible.”
“Amendment 71 will therefore amend the timing of the duty from “As soon as reasonably practicable after Royal Assent” to “Within the period of 1 year” from the commencement of the section. Amendment 72 will change the requirement for the statement to be in respect of any transfer of functions, because the transfer from SDS to the SFC will take place administratively, outwith the provisions in the bill. Amendment 72 will replace the current wording with wording that specifies the SFC assuming the new functions that will be conferred on it by sections 3 to 5 of the bill, which concern funding for programmes of training for employment, Scottish apprenticeships and work- based learning.”
“Amendment 112 disagreed to. Section 17A—Statement on financial implications The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 15 is on review of the act and statement on financial implications. Amendment 71, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 72, 73 and 113. Ben Macpherson: As in previous groups, my amendments 71 to 73 will tidy up Opposition amendments that were agreed to at stage 2. New section 17A will place a requirement on ministers to “lay before the Scottish Parliament a statement on the financial implications of any transfer of functions arising from this Act.” However, it would not be helpful for that duty to crystallise too early. If the new system is not sufficiently well advanced, such a statement might have little meaningful to report.”
“For Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jackie Dunbar] Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Abstentions Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 31, Against 70, Abstentions 17.”
“Amendment 69 disagreed to. Amendments 105 to 108 not moved. Amendment 109 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to. Amendments 110 and 111 not moved. After section 17 Amendment 112 moved—[Stephen Kerr]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 112 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jackie Dunbar] Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 48, Against 69, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 104 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to. Amendments 64 and 65 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to. Amendments 66 to 68 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to. Amendment 69 moved—[Stephen Kerr]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed. 19:45 Davy Russell: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Russell. Your vote will be recorded.”
“It should not have to rubber stamp what it says, but it should accept almost everything that it says, because that is where the authority should lie. I hope that apprentices understand, engage and debate with the committee but that they understand that it should have the authority to gain the confidence of the business community and ensure that we get the policy right. I hope that the minister listens to all that. For those reasons, I will not move my amendments in the group, other than amendments 109, 100 and 104, which I will move. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I take it that you will not press amendment 98. Willie Rennie: I will not press it. Amendment 98, by agreement, withdrawn. Amendment 99 not moved. Amendment 100 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to. Amendments 101 to 103 not moved.”
“I hope that the minister has heard all the anxieties in the room, particularly regarding my point on graduate apprenticeships, to ensure that the system is a damn sight swifter than it has been so far, that it is flexible and meets modern needs swiftly, that it is not overly bureaucratic, as it is now, and that the committee’s composition reflects the need to include many employers—people who take on apprentices and have direct experience in the current system—while also maintaining the committee’s overall authority. I accept that the apprentice committee will be a sub-committee of the Funding Council, which is probably how it will be for accountability purposes, but I hope that the Funding Council fully respects the committee’s authority and, more often than not, just accepts what it says.”
“I worry about sometimes being a bit too prescriptive in the way that we legislate here, when, in fact, as well as some prescription, we should be allowing some degree of flexibility, to allow the new body to evolve over time to meet the new needs of the economy and the skills landscape. I am pleased that the minister accepts my amendment 109, which deals with the “appointment of the chair of the committee”; amendment 100, which sets out that advising on “work-based learning” should be part of the committee’s remit, so that foundation apprentices are represented; and amendment 104, which would ensure that, when deciding who should be a member of the committee, the council must have regard to representation from business and apprentices. All that is fine.”
“Whenever we get change, everybody looks to protect what they have, rather than perhaps looking to see what the opportunities are for integration. I fully accept that that is the debate that we have all been struggling with. I have certainly been struggling with that, through the process and progress of this bill and the Withers report. I accept that there are benefits from trying to change the way that the Funding Council operates as a whole, not just to deal with apprentices but to consider what learning there is to be gained from apprentices for the college and the university sector, and vice versa. What can the apprenticeship system learn from the way in which those institutions work, and the other way around? All of that is a valid debate to be had.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Willie Rennie to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 98. Willie Rennie: The debate on this section has been quite interesting; it has been about whether we have an integrated set of committees and bodies that consider everything in the round, so that we get full integration and are able to deal with big sectors—such as finance, which dominates many regions across the country, not just one region—or a more bespoke approach in which we deal with regions on an individual basis, deal with graduate apprenticeships in a sub- committee, and have an industry committee. At the heart of an awful lot of this debate is the fear that apprentices will simply be tacked on to the Funding Council.”
“By creating a Scottish Funding Council with just two members from a business or industrial background and by having an apprenticeship committee that merely advises and does not have a clear structure around its content, shape or composition, we are setting out a very unclear strategy. The strategy will certainly not be industry led in the way that many people want—they want to see a change in the way that skills are delivered in Scotland, so that there is a much more flexible and responsive approach to changing economic need. That is why there is a fundamental flaw at the heart of the bill, and why the Government will be making a mistake when it rejects these amendments this afternoon—particularly Willie Rennie’s amendments, which I think could make for a better bill.”
“I accept the broad point from the Government that it is sensible that we have an ability to draw funding together for both tertiary education and the skills system, but there are different ways of doing that. One way might be to pursue a centralised approach, but another way might well have been to pursue a much more regional model in which budget is assigned directly to regional bodies that could disburse funding at a regional level. However, we have not examined or answered that question, and that lack of strategy from the Government is a fundamental flaw. At the end of the day, although we can talk about strategies as though they are just papers, I do not believe that they are. Strategies are the embodiment of decision making. We bake them into the structures that we create.”
“As long as there is simply a committee to provide advice, we have an issue with the way that the system will work, because of the natural tendency for such things to skew towards the centre of gravity of the overall organisation, especially given that the Funding Council is a pre-existing organisation. Stephen Kerr made some good points about regional policy. I say that not just because I think that having regional policies is important and not just because the regional aspect of employment was a critical element of the Withers review. We do not really know what the Government thinks about that, but it goes to the very heart of the matter.”
“I wanted to create an apprenticeship board—not just an apprenticeship committee or a body for advice, but, much as Willie Rennie seeks to achieve through some of his amendments, a structural input into the overall SFC. If we had done that, we would have elevated the bill and created a mechanism whereby we could balance the wider responsibilities, but with a much greater emphasis on industrial input to shape and direct skills policy. I sought to create a new body, which would have been called the apprenticeship board, to do just that. Unfortunately, the drafting of my amendment 105 is such that it would set up a sub- committee of the apprenticeship committee, and that was not my intent, which I acknowledge. However, it is an important point.”
“Indeed, if we look at the current make-up of the Scottish Funding Council’s board, we can see that it includes business experience. That is an important point to emphasise to those who are listening from the business community. Daniel Johnson: It is critically important, but we also need to look at what the council is being asked to do. To put it in crude terms, we are all familiar with the phrase “follow the money” and, of the funds that the Scottish Funding Council is responsible for, the vast bulk and overwhelming majority is for university and college funding, so the SFC will naturally skew towards focusing on those areas unless structural devices are put in place to prevent that. I acknowledge that my amendment 105 does not quite do what I would have intended it to do.”
“I worry that that will be insufficient, because, in my view— Ben Macpherson rose— Daniel Johnson: I will just finish this point. In my view, under the strategy as it must be, we need a skills system that is industry led. We do not necessarily know what the Government’s intention is, because we do not have the strategy, but, if that is the intent, I do not see how two members on a board of 11 or 14 members can deliver that. Ben Macpherson: In previous discussions, I have argued that the board size should go up to 16 members. As I said just a few moments ago, it is important to recognise that, although amendments, if agreed to, will stipulate two members from industry, there is nothing to say that other members of the council will not have a business background.”
“To get structural change right, we need a strategy and some clarity on what the Government seeks to do. Equally important, if the Government is to get its strategy right, that must be embodied in the governance correctly, and I fear that it is not getting that right, for a number of reasons. The Scottish Funding Council’s track record is not good on employer engagement and being industry led. In the one area of the apprenticeship system and skills system that it has input into or locus over, which is graduate apprenticeships, there has been no expansion, yet we are being asked to believe that, on the basis of there being two members from industry, we will have the industry insight and leadership to drive that forward.”
“If the bill is genuinely about building a skills system that supports productivity, opportunity and growth across all of Scotland, regional skills boards must be taken seriously, and amendment 112 would help to ensure that they are. For those reasons, I hope that colleagues will be open-minded enough to support amendments 69 and 112; I especially draw members’ attention to amendment 112. Daniel Johnson: We should all thank members for bearing with us this evening. This is the penultimate group of amendments, but I think that it is one of the most important. My critique of the Government’s approach to this has been consistent, whether in respect of the current minister or his predecessors. In essence, there is a lack of clarity around the strategy, what it seeks to deliver and, critically, how it will deliver.”
“If funding and provision do not reflect that, I fear that we will waste money and frustrate employers and learners alike. 19:30 Together, amendments 69 and 112 would push back against the tendency to overcentralise, overinstitutionalise and allow the public sector in Scotland to dominate discussions, which, in relation to skills, is a particular priority and of particular importance. This is about effectiveness, respect, the complexity of our country and respect for place. Economic growth does not come from uniformity— it does not work that way. It comes from playing to strengths, supporting local industries and building skills pipelines locally, which is where local businesses do their hiring. That makes sense from the perspective of the local economy.”
“Amendment 112 is designed to prevent all that. It would strengthen the expectation that the work of regional skills boards should not just be noted or discussed in passing but should actively inform the advice that is given to the various functions of the council. It is not beyond the wit of those involved to ensure that that information is appropriately transmitted without that having to be set out in the bill. I repeat that this matters because Scotland is not a single labour market. What employers need in different parts of Scotland is diverse, and skills shortages are uneven. We know that that is the case in the public sector—in education, for example—and in other parts of our economy. Opportunities are also uneven across Scotland.”
“If we draw everything ever more to the national level, whether we like it or not, the simplification and efficiency that the Government talks about become a one-size-fits-all approach. Too often, regional skills intelligence has been gathered, and maybe even discussed, but then quietly ignored at national level when decisions are taken centrally. I note that some members find great hilarity in this, but I am definitely committed to the concept of devolution. However, the devolution that I want is not a devolution from London to Edinburgh; it is a devolution of powers from Edinburgh to the places where people live in Scotland, because they are all quite different and diverse. That is not recognised enough in the way that we do things here. We try to make a homogeneous Scotland a reality, but it is not a reality.”
“Similarly, when he uses the word “simplification”, I kind of shudder, because it suggests to me a one-size-fits-all approach. I think that we have enough of a one-size-fits-all mentality in the Government’s approach to Scotland. The Government does not seem to recognise the variances that exist, particularly in our economy. What is good in one part of Scotland will not necessarily be appropriate or fit in another part of Scotland, which is why I strongly believe that there is a place for regional skills boards. I do not know why the minister talked about the bodies in Glasgow and Lanarkshire. Those are not the same as what I am talking about. I am not talking in the context of college regionalisation or structures; I am talking in the context of skills, and I am proposing regional skills boards.”
“Also, with respect, amendment 112 is unclear on how the proposed boards would interact with the apprenticeship and skills committees, with which they would be likely to come into conflict, given their overlapping roles. I refer the member to my amendment 10, which we debated in an earlier group, and which relates to how the strategy will consider regional needs and nuances. That is the right place to consider those points. Jackie Dunbar’s amendments that we considered in a previous group also relate to local issues and matters. Stephen Kerr: The problem that I have with all that is the same one that I raised with the minister earlier. I do not want to be picky about words, but they matter—they convey what we mean. The minister talked earlier about efficiency, and I talked about effectiveness, but those are not necessarily the same thing.”
“Amendment 112 is about the role and importance of regional skills boards and making sure that they are not treated as peripheral or decorative. Those boards would be where national ambition meets local economic reality. Ben Macpherson: I apologise that I did not cover the member’s amendment 112 in my remarks. If it is helpful, I point out that the member lodged a similar amendment at stage 2— amendment 194. Unfortunately, amendment 112 runs counter to simplification and recent changes to remove regional strategic bodies that were considered unhelpfully bureaucratic in regional college provision, for example in Glasgow and Lanarkshire.”
“The reality is that we have three because we acknowledge that there is a difference in the nature of the economy in different parts of Scotland. The economic activity that occurs in different parts of Scotland is not homogenous. We can design national structures, national committees and national priorities, but the truth is that skills are delivered locally. Labour markets are local, and employers recruit locally. The reason for the focus of amendment 112 is that colleges serve real places with specific economic strengths and weaknesses. If the system does not properly recognise that, it will never quite line up with reality. Over the past few years, and particularly in the current Government’s lifetime, there has been a propensity for things to be centralised and become national rather than there being a focus on the regions.”
“At the end of the day, this is all about education and training for a purpose, which is to do with making our country more prosperous. I think that the minister is making a mistake by dismissing the idea of setting the number and composition of the apprenticeship committee. I want to say something more about amendment 112, which, as I said, I do not think the minister said anything about. The reason for the amendment relates to the nature of Scotland’s economy, which is recognised in basic things such as the number of enterprise agencies. We have one enterprise agency for the Highlands and Islands, one called Scottish Enterprise and one for the south of Scotland. Why do we have three? One could argue that we should have more, or fewer.”
“For me, the most startling example of that has been the experience of the committees that were set up around the city region deals, with the consequential changes that have taken place in those over time. Because of the nature of those committees’ work and the way that they are run, gradually people opt not to be part of them. That is why addressing such matters in the bill, as Willie Rennie and I have both proposed, makes a lot of sense. I wanted there to be a minimum of 20 members on the committee, which I know sounds like a lot for a committee, because a breadth of experience is needed, and so are numbers. I heard the minister say earlier that there will be 11 members on the SFC and two will be employers. That seems totally underrepresentative of the real world and the real economy.”
“I did not hear a reason in his response to the amendments and I do not think that I missed it—I think that it was not given. We previously discussed the issues to which my amendment 69 relates. The reasons why I am keen that there should be some indication of the size and composition of the apprenticeship committee are the same reasons that Willie Rennie gave. I have been around long enough to have seen a situation before where a well- intended committee is set-up, with some kind of structure and the best of intentions, but over time employer or private sector involvement in it diminishes to the point where it becomes dominated by one member—namely, a public sector or trade union representative.”
“We do not need to include in the bill a power to create a sub-committee on graduate apprenticeships. The SFC and the apprenticeship committee, at their discretion, could create one in the future if they wished to. Therefore, I ask members to support my amendments 66 to 68, Ross Greer’s amendments 64 and 65, and Willie Rennie’s amendments 100, 104 and 109. I hope that the arguments that I have set out reassure and convince Willie Rennie not to move his amendments 98, 99, 101 to 103, 106, 108 and 111. I similarly ask Daniel Johnson not to move his amendments 105, 107 and 110, and Stephen Kerr not to move his amendments 69 and 112. If any of those amendments are moved, I ask members to vote against them. Stephen Kerr: I do not think that the minister gave a reason for why he thought that regional skills committees were a bad idea.”
“The bill gives any person the power to request a framework to be prepared, and ministers can set out in regulations the process to be followed by the SFC in response. We could use those regulations to set out the process and timescales for developing and producing frameworks in future, as I have already stated. Separating out consideration of graduate apprenticeships from other apprenticeships and work-based learning would be potentially counterproductive to the shared aim of simplifying structures and making things more cohesive around all types of apprenticeships. Moreover, there will be nothing to prevent the SFC or the apprenticeship committee from establishing sub- committees in the future with an appropriate remit, should it deem that to be necessary, including to undertake specific work around graduate apprenticeships.”
“That applies to Daniel Johnson’s amendment 105 and his consequential amendments 107 and 110, and it also applies to Willie Rennie’s amendments 106, 108 and 111. Amendments 106, 108 and 111 would require the SFC to establish a sub-committee of the apprenticeship committee with responsibility for considering issues related to graduate apprenticeships. Willie Rennie is right to highlight some issues with graduate apprenticeship delivery, which we are already working to fix before the bill comes into force, and which the bill will further assist with. We certainly need the process of developing graduate apprenticeship frameworks to be more efficient, and frameworks absolutely need to be shorter and simpler, as I have said today.”
“If it has too few members, it will not have a sufficient range of desirable views, skills and experience, and if it has too many members, it will be costly and hard to manage, even with regard to simple things such as finding mutually convenient dates for meetings. We need to be cognisant of all that. I move on to sub-committees of the apprenticeship committee. A number of amendments seek to create statutory sub- committees of the apprenticeship committee. That may be desirable, but it would be unhelpful for similar reasons to those that have already been set out. I do not think that it is desirable to prescribe such an approach in law and to remove discretion from the SFC and, indeed, the apprenticeship committee.”
“Amendment 97 requires the Scottish ministers “to have regard to the desirability” of appointing persons to the council with those skills, and amendment 109 requires the Scottish ministers to give the SFC guidance on whom to appoint to be chair of the apprenticeship committee. Amendment 103 is therefore unnecessary, and I ask Mr Rennie not to press it for the reasons that I have set out. Stephen Kerr’s amendment 69 is familiar from stage 2. It would require the apprenticeship committee to have at least 20 members, which is unhelpfully limiting and prescriptive, in my view, particularly when we have no experience of the apprenticeship committee operating yet. There is a balance to be struck regarding the size of the apprenticeship committee—or any committee, for that matter.”
“The SFC must be able to appoint the right mix of skills and experience to the committee to reflect those different responsibilities. Mr Rennie may be right that more than half the members of the committee should have that experience and background, particularly in the early days of the apprenticeship committee’s inception. However, it might not be appropriate for the committee to have that balance of membership in perpetuity. Prescribing the balance in law would therefore restrict the evolution of the new arrangements and of the apprenticeship committee. Willie Rennie’s amendment 103 would require the person appointed to chair the apprenticeship committee to have experience of employing apprentices and have a background in industry. However, amendment 97, which was considered in group 13, and amendment 109, address those same concerns.”
“The SFC needs to be able to comply with its duties in legislation, including the mandatory requirements to have regard to certain views and to follow any regulations on procedure. The apprenticeship committee has a crucial advisory role, but it should not directly determine those matters. Amendment 102, in the name of Willie Rennie, would add a requirement that more than one half of the members of the apprenticeship committee must have experience of employing apprentices and have a background in industry. That would fetter the discretion of the SFC in appointing the committee and ministers in issuing their guidance. The apprenticeship committee will be responsible for advising on modern and graduate apprenticeships, and if amendment 100 were to be agreed to this evening, also workplace learning.”
“19:15 Unfortunately, I cannot support the remaining amendments in group 14, and I will now set out why. Willie Rennie’s amendment 99 would make the committee responsible for directing the SFC on matters relating to apprenticeships. That is not appropriate, as the SFC must retain overall statutory responsibility for exercising its functions, including those in respect of apprenticeships. Willie Rennie’s amendments 98 and 101 would add to the remit of the apprenticeship committee, with the effect that it would be responsible for “determining the requirements of a Scottish apprenticeship in respect of different occupations or activities”. That is similarly problematic. The SFC as a whole is responsible for the apprenticeship functions.”
“I am also pleased to support Ross Greer’s amendments 64 and 65, which improve considerations relating to trade union representation on the apprenticeship committee by making it clear that the SFC must consider appropriate trade union representation. In relation to the committee’s remit, I am grateful to Willie Rennie for lodging amendment 100. As he said, through work-based learning, the bill makes provision for what are currently foundation apprenticeships. As he explained, it makes sense for the apprenticeship committee to consider both apprenticeships and work-based learning in the round. That will help to ensure that there are no disconnects between those different pathways, and it elevates the status of work-based learning. I am pleased to support amendment 100.”
“The apprenticeship committee should take account of the diverse needs of apprentices and businesses across the whole of Scotland, and it should support small businesses, which are crucial to our economy now and to our future economic prosperity. Willie Rennie’s amendment 109 would require the Scottish ministers to give the SFC guidance on the appointment of the chair of the apprenticeship committee. Given the essential importance of that appointment, as members emphasised at stage 2, I am pleased to support the amendment. Given that ministers are responsible for appointing members of the council, and the chair must be a council member, it makes sense for ministers to give guidance to the SFC on that appointment. Amendment 109 also works well with Willie Rennie’s amendment 97, in group 13, which has been agreed to.”
“However, I absolutely understand the desire to ensure that the apprenticeship committee’s membership broadly reflects those specific interests in its work, as we discussed at stage 2. Therefore, I am pleased to support Willie Rennie’s amendment 104, which requires the SFC to consider appointing apprentices or their representatives to sit on the apprenticeship committee. It also makes provision for consideration of business representatives, including those of small and rural businesses with an interest in apprenticeships, which is important. The amendment responds proportionately to members’ concerns at stage 2.”
“On the question about who should be appointed to the apprenticeship committee, the bill does not mandate a particular composition, but the SFC is required to have regard to the desirability of including particular persons. At stage 2, a number of members wanted a clear focus on businesses, industry and employers, and Pam Duncan-Glancy highlighted the importance of apprentices themselves. However, I could not support those stage 2 amendments, because they would have unduly constrained the SFC in making appointments to the apprenticeship committee. We need its membership to be able to flex and evolve to align with the apprenticeship programme, and we do not know how priorities might change in the future. Prescribing membership in the bill would mean that it could not change to meet emerging needs and interests.”
“First, I will speak about my amendments 66 to 68. Amendment 66 is a technical amendment that ensures that references to apprentices in the bill are consistent with those in the 2005 act. Amendments 67 and 68 respond to stage 2 amendments that sought to influence the constitution and role of the apprenticeship committee. My amendments make it clear that the SFC must consult representatives of apprentices, their employers and “such other persons” as the SFC considers appropriate when appointing members to the committee. It is absolutely right that appointments to the committee are informed by the views of the two paramount stakeholders— apprentices and their employers—and other parties that the SFC determines to be relevant in the circumstances. I hope that colleagues will support those amendments.”