Seòmar agus comataidhean

On the basis of commitments from the Government on membership of the apprenticeship committee, I will not move amendments 183 and 185.

On behalf of Daniel Johnson, I undertake to engage with the Government in the hope that agreement can be reached about the importance of the proposed committee—the industry skills board—as Daniel Johnson and I have envisaged it. Therefore, I will not press amendment 181, in the name of Daniel Johnson.

Amendment 181, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 182 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.

Amendment 37 not moved.

Amendment 18 moved—[Bill Kidd]—and agreed to.

Amendments 183 to 186 not moved.

Amendments 187 and 188 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.

Amendment 189 moved—[Miles Briggs].

Will the minister take another intervention?

Good morning. Forgive me, because I have already spoken and have not said that yet.

My amendment 109 says that work-based learning or foundation apprenticeships must be delivered collaboratively with employers, local authorities and schools and that consideration must be given to the attainment gap, post-school destinations and rural access and transport barriers.

Andrew Ritchie from Aberdeenshire Council, when giving evidence to the committee, said that moving foundation apprenticeships from the apprenticeship family to

“as yet undefined work-based learning courses”

poses a risk that

“foundation apprenticeships will be no more”.—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 14 May 2025; c 6.]

East Ayrshire Council’s education service said that the bill

“endangers the provision of school-based qualifications and effectively places them solely in FE domain.”

In addition, John Vincent, of Colleges Scotland, said that it would be an “enormous loss” if foundation apprenticeships, particularly at SCQF level 6, lost their status as a result of the measures in the bill.

The Government did not support many of my other amendments on foundation apprenticeships. Amendment 109 is a backstop that would protect foundation apprenticeships in the legislation, and guarantee that the experts in delivering them—local authorities, education services and colleges—are involved in the future development of them. Given that the Government does not support any of my other amendments, I hope that it can support amendment 109.

My amendment 114 says that the Scottish Funding Council

“must have regard to the needs of small and micro businesses”

in the work that it does. When we took evidence on the bill, one of the concerns—it is one of many—was that it did not deliver for trade, industry and businesses. One of the ways in which I am seeking to address that is through amendment 114. I appreciate the minister’s comments about not necessarily needing to state that in the bill, but, as we have seen in recent years, if something is not put in statute—if it is not in primary legislation—when the going gets tough, it usually has to get going. That is why it is incredibly important to include the provision in the bill.

I move to my colleague Daniel Johnson’s amendments. His amendment 113 seeks to ensure that, if public money goes to private and independent providers for in-work learning and apprenticeships, that we require for the public pound value for money, fair work as standard and transparency on spend. It would also require that we publish the shift in that funding, so that if it is moving from public sector provision, that would be seen clearly and transparently.

I note the minister’s point that we are in agreement that value for money, fair work and transparency are important. However, I again refer him to my comments about the fact that, if that provision is not in the bill, we run the risk of that not being done in a system that is already particularly stretched. All that amendment 113 seeks to require is that, when public money is spent by a private provider, we get value for money and ensure that they adopt fair work practices. The minister noted that, through the amendment, we would be setting out what fair work practices would be—it was something along those lines. That is not what amendment 113 says. It merely says that a provider must adopt fair work practices. Requiring the adoption of such practices should not be a surprise or news to the Government, which talks about its commitment to fair work. If it is committed to such practices, I urge the Government to support amendment 113.

Daniel Johnson’s amendment 117 seeks to place a duty on the SFC to expand modern work-based earn-and-learn routes, including graduate levels, which is why we support his amendment over others in this group that seek to do a similar thing. The amendment would apply to sectors in which there are shortages, such as the NHS, care, net zero, digital and planning. As we know, work-based learning programmes have been slow to adapt and have not addressed major public service gaps, such as NHS roles. Amendment 117 would future proof work-based learning and would enable us to address some of the significant skills and workforce gaps in the key areas where we know Scotland will need skills and people in the future.

Daniel Johnson’s amendment 120 would require the SFC’s annual report to include information on the amount of funding that is provided to employers and training providers for the purpose of delivering Scottish apprenticeships, including, for each framework, the level of funding that is provided for an individual Scottish apprenticeship. We know that contribution rates are frozen, including in plumbing and in other industries. Stakeholders fear that, inside the Scottish Funding Council, apprenticeship money could become the easiest pot to raid and that SMEs will just stop taking on apprenticeships in that circumstance. Amendment 120 seeks to address that.

The amendment is not about saying that the SFC would not prioritise apprenticeships. It is about recognising that the SFC is quite busy with other fires that it needs to fight, including in universities and colleges across the country. People can do only so many things at one time.

The member is quite right—that is what devolution is about—but we do not hear the Scottish Government saying that it has too much money to spend on skills and is therefore choosing to spend it on something else. What we hear it saying is that it does not have enough money to support colleges or deliver apprenticeships for every young person who has the right grades to secure one. When the Government says that, it is important for us to understand its thinking, instead of letting it hide behind the devolution settlement and blaming other people, as it usually does.

I am not sure that the Government and ministers have been quite as clear as John Mason, who considers that priorities such as colleges and skills have slid down. That could be a surprise to people—although not to people working in colleges or who have been unable to access education through colleges or other sectors because the funding has been cut by 20 per cent over a significant number of years. However, it would be a surprise to people who think that the Scottish Government says—or pretends to say—that those things are a priority. Politics is about priorities, and amendment 121 seeks to help people to understand the Government’s priorities at any given time.

I whole-heartedly agree. There are skills gaps throughout the economy and the public sector, and we cannot fill them and thereby deliver on Government priorities, such as the NHS, if we do not upskill the workforce to do that. Members will have an opportunity to tease out more of this issue in the debate this afternoon.

Amendment 122, in the name of Daniel Johnson, states that funding from the levy

“must be used for the purpose of securing the delivery of skills training, including apprenticeships and initiatives for upskilling and reskilling.”

All Government priorities require a workforce, and that workforce must be skilled. That is why it is crucial that levy-paying employers can see where the money has gone so that they can understand and influence the way in which it is spent. That influencing must be done within the parameters that are set by some of the previous amendments on value for money, fair work and transparency—amendments that, sadly, the Government was unable to support. Nonetheless, amendment 122 seeks to make the situation much clearer, so that organisations that are paying the levy can see how much of the money is being spent on skills. It is also important for the public to understand what the Government is spending its money on. Transparency has not been a key feature of the current Government, and the amendment seeks to change that.

Amendment 125, in the name of Daniel Johnson, would require the Government to maintain skills spend as a separate budget line, distinct from the SFC’s education spend, to increase transparency by making clear in the budget how much is to be spent on the delivery of skills initiatives.

Amendment 126, in the name of Daniel Johnson, seeks to place an explicit duty on the Scottish ministers to set annual targets for growth in the number of skills development programmes that have started, and for ones that involve SMEs, ones in which the person undertaking the programme is over 25 years of age and ones for specified shortage sectors.

Again, that is not just so we can expose gaps in a particular Government’s priority, but so we can expose and understand gaps in industry, trade and the public sector. If we do not collect that data and understand what the gaps are, we will continue to find sectors struggling to recruit and meet demand, and having to recruit from elsewhere.

This suite of amendments seeks to make spending more transparent, help with workforce planning and ensure that the priorities of the Scottish people are delivered, through a skilled workforce.

I move amendment 121.

I am sorry to have interrupted the member mid-flow; I was trying to find the right time to intervene.

Has the member considered the impact of his amendment on Office for National Statistics classification? Has he had any representations from the universities on it?

Amendment 138, in my name, would insert in the bill a requirement on the SFC to report on the financial sustainability of post-16 bodies, and it would require there to be a focus on “continuity of learner provision”. It would also require ministers to give a statement to Parliament on that. Amendment 137 is consequential.

Amendment 139 would require that, where the SFC

“reasonably considers that there is a material risk of a post-16 education body being unable at any point in the next 6 months to deliver contracted learner provision without significant disruption”,

it must notify the governing body. In addition, the SFC must

“require the post-16 education body to prepare a recovery and continuity plan”

and must provide it

“with reasonable advice and support to enable it to continue to deliver contracted learner provision.”

Amendment 140 would require the SFC to report on socioeconomic disadvantage in all fundable bodies. I think that it is fair to say that in some—although not all—areas, we have made progress on that, but the picture is unclear and varies across different opportunities and models, including apprenticeships, FE and HE. The amendment seeks to address that. It would require the report to include detail on regional differences, on

“whether the learner has a disability”

and on

“the level of deprivation experienced.”

The Government would have to pay “due regard” to that report and make a statement on it.

I have listened carefully to the minister’s comments and I am minded not to move amendments 139 and 140, in order to work with the Government, if it is prepared to give a commitment to work with me at stage 3 to give effect to an amendment that would do what I have described. If the minister is prepared to intervene to confirm that, I would welcome such an intervention.

While the minister is perusing his detail on that, I will move on to speak about amendment 143—

Yes.